The phrase "believe all women" would be better served to be changed to "listen to women and take them seriously"

In the last few days there has been a surge of allegations in the gaming and tech community accusing several high profile personalities of sexual improprieties. As is almost always the case, lines are going to be drawn, sides are going to form, and you are going to have people supporting the alleged victim one one side and the alleged perpetrator on the other.

The phrase "believe all women" is often thrown around in instances like this whenever a sexual accusation is made. I think the better phrase is "listen to women and take them seriously." Too long to be suited for a hashtag on social media, I know, but it's a phrase that I feel works so much better in accomplishing what we need to actually accomplish, and that's getting getting justice for anyone victim of sexual assault or harassment. "Believe all women" a phrase that I absolutely cannot stand, find it incredibly dangerous, and I wish people would be a little bit more rational before blindly throwing phrases around without knowing their implications and the harm they could potentially cause not just for the MeToo movement, but for others.

No person, for any reason should ever simply believe something just because. We, as a society, already operate under this model the far majority of the time in everyday life, however, for some reason that logic seems to have escaped us with regard to sexual allegations. Whenever we are told a piece of information of any kind, we first process the plausibility of that information. It's an innate mechanism that prevents human beings from being snookered and taken advantage of. Shutting off your own safeguards and your ability to evaluate any piece of information given to you and its legitimacy is willfully dumbing down your own intellect.

There is a perception out there that immediately believing a woman whenever a sexual allegation is made is good for the woman, therefore you are doing the right thing. I think those who believe this are legitimately trying to do the right thing, just going about it the wrong way. There is a major problem with sexual assault and harassment in this world. Women have not been taken seriously enough, and they need to be, so vile individuals no longer take advantage of these women and treat them like sex objects. Countless victims are still out there unheard and afraid to speak due to years of us failing them as a society. However, merely "believing" a woman accomplishes nothing. If you want to get justice for a woman done wrong, it's not about what you believe, it's about what you can prove. That's just how the justice system works. It starts with listening to women and taking their allegations seriously, which, may be a small difference, but an important one. Facts and plausibility are always what need to be believed. If a woman accuses a man of sexual assault, law enforcement needs to listen intently, get all the facts, do a thorough investigation and either successfully corroborate those claims or not. Now, whether or not enough evidence will be amassed to actually bring charges is another story, but "believing" someone's story has no affect on that outcome whatsoever.

The court of public opinion is obviously a completely different beast, but I think the same logic should apply. It doesn't matter what the public believes when claims of sexual improprieties are made. The public's belief operates independently from the reality of what actually occurred, so it will do nothing to bring forth justice that the alleged victim desires. It will, on the other hand, potentially cause a total shit storm for the accused if they are, in fact, innocent. In today's age of social media, public pressure is greater than ever. People will be hounded with thousands upon thousands of angry voices calling for justice from all around the world, when mere decades ago that number was limited to some angry letters, emails, and signs outside of buildings. Companies feel backlash, so for the sake of self-preservation decide to end careers over what amounts to only an accusation. It's a horrible precedent to set, and enables anyone out there who wants vengeance on an individual for whatever reason, that they can severely damage a person's livelihood with very little else besides mean social media messages as a punishment, if they decide that trade-off is worth it. Mindlessly believing someone without merit, throws shade on the legitimate victims, who then will unfairly be lumped into the pool of sex crimes victims with those who either made fictional or exaggerated claims. Seeing the vitriol false accusers get on social media from enraged users who feel betrayed for buying into their stories, could deter actual victims from coming forward to tell their stories out of fear that if they oddly word their stories, they will get piled on as well. False accusers poison the well for everyone. It's extremely dangerous, and the last thing we want as a society is victims to not feel comfortable about coming forward and speaking out.

Whether you want to accept this fact or not, not every person accused of an impropriety is guilty. Most rape and assault allegations are true, but there are some that aren't. They should not be ignored either. There are good people out there who are the victim of crazy, spiteful, vindictive individuals who just want to ruin lives, and we should not enable this simply because we don't have the patience to wait for all the facts to come out. You can pick a side you think is most plausible, while also acknowledging that you still don't know the facts. Yet, many people can't even do that, and parading around with "BELIEVE ALL WOMEN" phrases implies just that: you don't need the facts, they don't matter. I've seen people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson being called a sexual predator like it was a proven fact of life, before even hearing his side of the story and letting the investigations take their natural course. These people didn't need to hear the facts, they just decided he was accused, so he's guilty, and then it spreads like wildfire. Others see it, believe it to be true, because they are too lazy or ignorant to put the time and effort into researching the subject, and next thing you know half the internet thinks someone is Satan over what amounted to be very little information at that point. And if it turns out in the end that the accused is actually innocent, then their lives could potentially be severely damaged with no hope for reconstruction. No one offers redemption to those kicked to the curb for no good reason, they become yesterday's news, and society moves on to the next big story to latch onto.

It's happened to others. Johnny Depp, Chris Hardwick, Alec Holowka from the gaming industry. Alec Holowka committed suicide over these allegations, as it ruined relationships he had in the gaming industry. A sober reminder that there are human beings on the other side of this, and actions this severe, if illegitimate can have dire consequences. We, as a society, have gone too far on our course correction in trying to solve the problem of sexual misbehavior. We've turned off our brains and decided to blindly follow the herd on the path toward justice, when the only path that will bring justice is the path of logic, reason, and a sensible mind in pursuit of justice. In the end, it's the victims of sex crimes who suffer the most, because the more this becomes a trend, the more society will regress back into not taking sexual allegations as seriously as they need to be, and more innocent women will not get the justice they so desperately deserve.

The myth about chokeholds and why a total ban is a bad idea

There has been much discussion in the news lately about the use of chokeholds in law enforcement, whether or not they should be restricted or banned completely, and I just wanted to take a few minutes to shed some light about their use, importance, and why I feel many people arguing for their outright ban have this very wrong.

Chokeholds, in this case classified as "sleeper holds" are one of the quickest, safest, and most effective ways to subdue a person and get them under your control. In 5-10 seconds, if a proper chokehold is executed, the person will temporary go unconscious and come to within a handful of seconds. A proper sleeper chokehold temporarily cuts off blood flow of the carotid artery in the neck causing the person to blackout. If executed properly, they do not cut off air flow, and are typically safe. People volunteer to be put in sleeper chokeholds all the time and if they are done by someone who knows what they are doing they rarely cause injury.

I agree that they should not be used by police officers haphazardly. They should only be used when an individual is either combative or resisting arrest and needs to be quickly and safely brought under control so he/she can be handcuffed. So, I support only using them in those types of situations, but an all-out ban on them is both dangerous to the officer and the civilian. If cops are no longer allowed to use chokeholds for any reason, then they will be forced to resort to other means to get a person under control as quickly as possible, which is how police are trained. It's all about speed, effectiveness, and efficiency.

Now, I'll throw out this scenario. A cop pulls someone over, for whatever reason. Their car was reported stolen, they were speeding, they were blowing red lights, etc. The officer finds out they have a warrant out for their arrest and is placing the person under arrest. As the officer goes to handcuff the individual, they decide to struggle, resist, or even fight back. If they are no longer legally allowed to use a chokehold, they now have to find another way to subdue the individual. The quickest and most effective way to do so after a chokehold is going to be physical blows. Specifically to the head or throat area, as blows to the body are not going to subdue an individual effectively. Punches or elbows to the face, possibly groin shots to the testicular area. These are going to cause much greater potential damage to the person being detained, and also the longer the officer has to tussle with this person, the greater harm potentially comes to them and nearby civilians if the officer is overpowered and potentially has their firearm taken from them.

Most of the people arguing for a total ban of chokeholds, including sleeper chokeholds have no experience or knowledge of hand-to-hand combat or law enforcement tactics. Many ex-officers, military, and professional fighters, who are either well versed in police tactics or combat maneuvers advocate for the use of chokeholds. The lawmakers and people in power against their use really have no knowledge of this, and if they listened to those who do know, they would not be pushing for total bans on chokeholds. Police reforms should be done by people most knowledgeable about these issues, not people in a suit and tie behind a desk. This is an over-correction in response to George Floyd's tragic death, which was a) not a chokehold, and b) was ruthlessly and callously pinned to the ground for almost 9 minutes. Sleeper chokeholds are done in seconds, and do not cut off an individual's breathing. Two completely different things. Kneeling on a person's throat has no business being used by police officers, especially when handcuffed it's absolutely barbaric. Sleeper chokeholds, however are extremely effective, and in fact, I can argue that more lives of innocent civilians would have been saved in struggles with cops if a chokehold was used instead of fighting, wrestling, which can lead to who knows what.

Rash policy decisions are always the worst, and I suspect any state that rushes to put a total ban on chokeholds, rather than specifying their use, will come to regret the decision within a few years, as both officer fatalities and civilian injuries during incidents with officers rise. Reforms should focus on properly training officers how to execute them, and what instances they should specifically be used in, rather than taking this effective maneuver out of their arsenal altogether.

I find it impossible to trust any of our nation's leaders, media, and respected voices for the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic

One of life's greatest comforts is knowing you have authority figures out there in the world much more educated and knowledgeable than you about specific subject matters, and that you can trust that they will properly educate you on those subjects and provide you with the proper guidance. 99.9% of the population knows nothing about virology, preventing disease, and how to live life under the dark cloud of a pandemic. So, naturally, we trust that we will be informed by those more informed than us, so we know what to do, how to act, and how to go about daily life.

Many of our nation's top doctors and disease specialists told the American people back in January and February that the coronavirus was not going to be a significant concern in the United States. That turned out to totally false, as in March the entire country was under lockdown. We were then told that wearing masks would not only be ineffective in preventing the spread of the virus, but shamed people who bought them, as they'd be taken away from medical professionals who needed them. Several weeks later, masks became mandatory universally in this country. Gee, who could have seen that coming? Ask China, Japan, and South Korea, countries used to dealing with pandemics what masks do. Many of their citizens wear masks year-round routinely as a part of daily life, not only during pandemics. Apparently this knowledge was so secretive that our nation's top doctors and experts didn't know about this revelation, and I'll venture to hypothesize that this critical error during those early weeks helped assist the spread of COVID-19. All because our disease experts and leaders were either too incompetent, too naive, too ignorant, or too disingenuous to acknowledge the importance of masks.

We've seen news outlets report that it could linger in the air for several hours respiratory droplets were expelled into the air. That turned out to be false, and has since been disputed. We were told it could linger on all surfaces from anywhere from hours to days. This has also since been proven to be incorrect, as latest reports show surface spreading isn't considered high risk. We were told to disinfect all items purchased from supermarkets and now that isn't necessary. Look, I understand. The more this virus is studied, the more they will understand it, and findings will change over time. In that case, it's the responsibility of our experts to stress that these things are only recommendations and it is not in any way proven at that point to be factually true, otherwise you will frighten the public. The country had people locked away in their homes for months afraid to go near anybody, touch anything, order food, etc. You have to think this contributed to suicide rates and mental health issues spiking, as well as businesses suffering because people are afraid to order out because they might have to handle a contaminated pizza box, or re-cooking their food after it was ordered to destroy any potential pathogens. I was one of them. We have a president who is speaking to the people, clearly having no clue about the virus, and how it works; spitballing preposterous ideas on how to prevent the virus. Both because of his own ignorance on the subject, and also I'd assume because he wasn't briefed thoroughly by his experts on the machinations of the virus and how to treat it.

However, maybe the most egregious and disgraceful aspect of all of this has been the social distancing guidelines. Our leaders, experts, and media shamed anyone who thought the guidelines were ridiculous and over the top. Companies removed and pulled down argumentative pieces citing data and rationale as to why this virus may be handled incorrectly and/or overblown. Some from experts themselves, offering a differing opinion from the orthodoxy. Families who were going broke and protested out on the streets to save their businesses so their families wouldn't wind up homeless were being mocked and shamed. People who wanted to go outside or go to a beach for some fresh air were ridiculed. Religious folk who wanted to go to church and pray were being criticized. All trashed by experts and news outlets for being selfish and putting others' lives at risk. Yet, in another breath, fully supported thousands of protestors marching on the streets shoulder to shoulder. An abomination of hypocrisy and inconsistency. There is nothing wrong with protesting. I fully support it and anyone's First Amendment right to express their beliefs in a peaceful nature. And if our nation's talking heads support that too, then great. But you can't tell one group of people they are allowed to gather together outside for one cause and then tell another they can't for theirs. It's despicable, and makes you lose credibility and trust from your citizens.

It has to be an all or none proposition. Either you can gather in public or you can't. Either you can protest in general or you can't. Picking and choosing which is worthy is putting your own personal agenda in play for said causes, and it is not the job of disease experts and the media to do so. Their job is to keep the country and its people safe and report news unbiased, respectively. The First Amendment applies to all Americans, whether you are supporting racial injustices or wanting to feed your family and speak about re-opening business. The virus does not care who you are or what you represent. It will kill or infect you all the same. How are we supposed to trust people who have either lied to us, been wrong, or promoted an agenda one way or another every step of the way?

The dam has already been broken at this point. There is no going back. If a spike of COVID returns in the fall, they can't lock back down again. The country can't sustain it economically or psychologically, and they've already indirectly told the public that the virus' seriousness only applies to certain situations, so as far as the people are going to be concerned, that means it isn't very serious at all. As someone who has taken this virus seriously from the beginning, that's disconcerting, as if another lockdown is truly needed, it is no longer feasible thanks to incompetence from our peers. More than anything I'm now just confused and feel betrayed. Was the lockdown necessary at all? Would it have been better to just allow people to wear masks and social distance from the beginning without locking down and simply quarantining those who are high risk? I don't know the answers to those questions. All I know is that I don't trust the people who are giving us those answers, and I don't know if or when I ever will.

My thoughts on the removal of historical statues and monuments

There are two types of people in this world. People who look for the bad in people and those who look for the good. What is said individual trying to accomplish? What do they represent? What defines good and what defines bad?

With recent news about historical statues being torn down and debate that others should be torn down, I took some time to sit back and evaluate my stance on it. For me, it's always going to be on a case by case basis. I fully support the removal of any Confederate statues. Not the destruction, however. They should be preserved locked away, as they are a part of history, and the preservation of history will always be important. It's a big reason why Auschwitz still stands today. However, statues, though representative of history, are a bit different than historical sites like Auschwitz. Statues are usually constructed for idolization or purposes of reverence. They are generally displayed in focal public centers to attract attention. Again, who are these figures? What do they represent? In the case of Confederate statues, they represent an opposition to freedom. An endorsement of slavery. Which is the antithesis of the progress we are trying to reach as a nation right now.

However, I don't feel this way about all statues and monuments. Like I said, I take every one on a case by case basis. I fully support keeping Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Winston Churchill statues and monuments erected in public areas. Retroactive judging seems to be a popular trend these days. One I try my best to avoid, as well as judging others in general. Judging an individual you don't know is always difficult, even more so if they lived in a different time period. We are all a product of the times we live in, whether you can come to terms with that or not. We are influenced by laws, morals, ideals, trends, technology relevant and accepted in our time. I don't have to point out or stress how different things were centuries ago(let alone decades ago). People always tell me "that's not an excuse for committing atrocities." Sure it is. Because certain acts of barbarism may not have been considered atrocities during their time. And if they were by some, it certainly was viewed morally much differently in their respective eras, and was in far greater debate during their times.

Shall I look at Christopher Columbus ravaging, pillaging, and ransacking people and territories? Shall I look at the fact that many of our founding fathers were slave owners? Or shall I look at the good they've done and accomplished for our nation and for the world? What takes precedent? What defines you as a human being? If someone comes up with a universal cure for cancer, but he also is known as a prick who would go to bars and start fights during his free time; is he an asshole or is he a hero? The answer to these questions are entirely subjective, which is why anyone trying to shut down conversation about these statues on any level is pigheaded and ignorant. Whether you are in support in keeping or removing these statues.

I have my own opinions just like anyone else. I tend to look at human beings in a positive light. I think most people are inherently good, but we are all imperfect. I think people should be remembered for their greatest achievements, as long as their greatest errors don't outweight those achievements in magnitude. We, after all, are defined by our actions and accomplishments. Christopher Columbus paved the way for western civilization with his daring voyages. Would we exist right now if not for him? Maybe. I'm sure some other old chap would have eventually explored just as he did, but for now Christopher Columbus is someone who we know accomplished this. His impact on the world will last for as long as human civilization exists, until as long as earth stays orbiting around the sun. I can't speak to what life was back then, but who am I to judge? What would I have been like during those times under the influence of centuries-old values, ideals, and morals? But I'm here, alive, in the United States of America--a part of western civilization, and at least I have that, which counts for something. Something that can be, partially credited to, Christopher Columbus. I, myself, have no personal affinity or adoration for Christopher Columbus himself. I value his contributions to the world entirely in a vacuum.

Our founding fathers owned slaves. They also laid the ground work and set up the foundation for everything this country, once it became an independent nation has ever built or achieved. Are we to be so vindictive and so shortsighted that we cannot lament some of their actions on the micro level, but laud their amazing accomplishments on the macro level? The Constitution and Declaration of Independence still hold up incredibly well today, and these documents were written hundreds of years ago. Think about how forward-thinking, influential, and bright these minds have to be to achieve such a feat. There are nations that exist today in 2020 whose freedoms and ideals are less up to date than those of men who established them in the late 1700s, and gave us the guide to establish most legal and moral precedents that still exist today in American culture and society. Do the achievements of these men outweigh any transgressions they may have done? I think so.

Despite not being an American, the Winston Churchill debate might be the one that bothers me most of all. History might suggest that Winston Churchill had racist beliefs or prejudices against Jews, Muslims, Native Americans and Africans. Churchill is also criticized for the bombing of Dresden as a retaliatory strike, when Dresden had no geographical significance to the war at that point, and the killing of innocent German lives. I don't know what was in Winston Churchill's heart, so I can't confirm or deny any racist claims. I will say if he was a racist, he certainly wouldn't be unique during those times. What I can tell you is that Winston Churchill was instrumental in the defeat of the biggest racist and white supremacist the earth has ever seen in Adolf Hitler. Without Winston Churchill's bravery, wit, and stubbornness, World War II might have gone far differently. Neville Chamberlain was a coward. He didn't have the guts to stand up to Hitler and sat by naively and foolishly thinking he wouldn't expand territory and eventually turn his sights further west. Churchill knew this, he fought for this, and his people rallied around him.

The Battle of Britain was said by historians to almost be an impossible task and one of the many turning points in the war. Vastly outnumbered and out-manned, Britain had to fend off waves of attacks by a superior force with determination and grit carrying them, as a sitting duck out there in the Atlantic. And they did so successfully against the odds. A determined British people who showed incredible patriotism, sparked by Churchill's bravery. Had Britain fallen, Nazi Germany would have nothing in between them and the United States other than the Atlantic Ocean. Would we as Americans be around today if not for Churchill? Impossible to say. I tend to think Hitler's ambition would have ended him eventually, but I can't say for sure. But to demonize a man responsible for your very freedoms and the fact that most British citizens would not be alive today if not for him makes him one of the most important figures in the history of that nation. And wanting to tear down any monuments of him is a slap in the face to his role in taking down the greatest evil our world has ever seen and making sure Britain stands as what it remains today. Prioritizing his faults over his triumphs, especially those triumphs directly contributed to the defeat of Hitler and Nazi Germany is cynical or ungrateful at best.

The acts of trying to remove or erase history, and shutting down freedom of expression and thought are not acts of progress, but acts of power and control. They set a horrible precedent, and history shows us these are things you typically see from fascist dictatorships. People who want to control the narrative and minds of the general population by shutting subjective things down they themselves have deemed as "wrong." These are the kinds of tactics you saw from Nazi Germany and ISIS. Does that mean that these people are evil white supremacists or vicious terrorists? No, of course not. But those groups are not the kinds of people you want to be emulating, I can tell you that much. It's a radical movement masquerading as liberalism, but in actuality stands against traditional liberal values.

A hundred years from now, future generations may look back on us and shame us for things we do today that are commonplace and hasn't even dawned on us to be morally wrong. Maybe one day hunting will be banned globally and anyone who has ever hunted will be condemned. Or anyone who ever drove a gasoline-powered vehicle and contribution to pollution. Anyone who operated a factory, who owned horses, who went to a zoo, who bought products constructed in Chinese sweatshops. Hell, maybe something innocuous as not wearing a mask every single day in public, because in future it will be permanently mandatory. Does that make us evil? Does that mean we shouldn't be honored, remembered, or celebrated? Or maybe you are just afraid that if you allow yourself to open your mind and change the context in which you view things, that your beliefs will change and that's what bothers you more than anything.

Defunding or abolishing police departments is a dangerous concept that will affect minorities most, and for the sake of society, I hope is merely a foolish fad

Imagine being in bed at night when you hear a noise downstairs. You open your bedroom door to take a peak and hear someone rumbling through drawers in the other room. Your first instinct, so innately it's practically biological, is to grab your phone and call 911 so they can send the police.

Now imagine if instead of the police(who would arrive well-equipped to deal with any potential threat, even if the intruder was heavily armed) a neighborhood watchmen was alerted and had to bicycle over on his Diamondback with a taser and can of pepper spray to handle the situation. You wouldn't feel safe would you? Yes, it's a tad hyperbolic, but that's one potential reality in a life without cops. Something that has foolishly and laughably been discussed not just among casual conversation, but among people in power. City councilmen(and women) and political leaders. Granted, a small minority at this point, but we actually have real-life people in political power pushing for abolishing police departments. People whose job it is to put people first, are discussing defunding or removing the very entity that is charged to keep its citizens safe domestically in the United States.

Frankly, as someone who has cops in my family and someone who a few of my closest friends grew up to join law enforcement, I was saddened and disappointed. Though I wasn't stunned. I know how the world works, especially with social media. People will latch on to the latest narrative trend, sometimes for that dopamine rush of likes, retweets, and upvotes; sometimes for political purposes, and sometimes out of raw passion. Regardless of the reason, for the first time in my life there seems to be actual momentum on this absurd and dangerous notion, propagated by those with political agendas with their eyes toward November, pandering to their base.

In the age of social media, nuance has been lost. People have been conditioned to neglect thinking through a wide array of ideas, circumstances, outcomes, and possibilities. The luxury of having everything the world can offer right in the palm of your hand has cursed your everyday John and Jane with ADD. Clickbait headlines have worsened it. There's too much information to absorb at once. No one has the time or patience anymore to read, to reason, to understand. The easiest path is always the path of least resistance. Take someone's word as truth and move on to the next subject. But what if that person's word wasn't truthful? What if you were being inundated on social media with posts, sorted by algorithms that contribute to confirmation bias? Social media companies structure their platforms so we see what their algorithms think we want to see. Which, in some cases, is not always the truth, and in instances where it is the truth, may only be anecdotal, and not representative of the larger picture. People seeing videos showing police brutality and social media has conditioned us to extrapolate that in their minds to being the norm, which I can't blame the people for. However, much of it are merely small samples in a country that has millions upon millions of police interactions with civilians yearly, with almost a million police officers. If every time there was a shark attack or a bear attack, it hit social media, over time we'd become conditioned falsely believe that these rare occurrences are proof of some new out of control behavioral change in the animal kingdom that threatens our lives.

Those with socioeconomic or political agendas will try and sell you that law enforcement is bad. That it has never been worse. That innocent people are being killed left and right. The facts don't support that and the data doesn't support that. The truth is actually the opposite. Less unarmed civilians are being killed than ever, more corrupt and bad cops are being prosecuted than ever, officers are being fired more than ever for wrongdoing, and more steps have been taken to best hold officers accountable than ever. 2019 marked the lowest number of police involved shootings in 30 years. 2019 also marked a 73% drop in police shootings of unarmed African American civilians. And of those 10(down from 38 in 2015), about half of those 10 were either combative to the officers or made acts of aggression toward them and put their lives in danger. This marks the best progress the police force has made in years. Statistically, it's actually more likely that an African American or Hispanic officer shoot an African American civilian than it is a white officer. The chances of anyone, regardless of race, being killed by an officer is still extremely small, per the data. One in the tens of thousands, and even smaller a percentage depending on how you narrow down the criteria. Is it perfect? Of course not. Ideally those numbers would all be zero. We still have a long way to go. We always will. Perfection is not achieved overnight, if it's even achievable at all. To reach the desired destination, sometimes the journey has to be passed on through generations. But incremental progress is still progress. Almost all progress is incremental, no matter where you find it. Even circumstances outside the sociopolitical and economic spectrum. If you blow out your knee and get surgery, that knee isn't going to feel right until you finally get that cast off many weeks later. You test it out and for the first time in a while, you finally feel like you can walk and jog without pain. Did the knee just magically heal the second you took off the cast? No, it's been healing very slowly, day by day, until you finally got the cast removed. Progress can be slow, but it does add up over time.

Go ahead and ask your grandparents how things were like back in their day when they were growing up. Or stories that were passed down to them from their grandparents. Go back far enough and you can find police officers who could shoot an unarmed black man or woman whenever they wanted with impunity, then go to the local bar and high-five their cop buddies about it as they celebrated it over some beers. Detectives would routinely frame and set up black men for crimes committed by white men because they knew that's what the public wanted. Their pound of flesh, inspired by racism, hatred, and wanting to go back to the old ways, when they didn't have to deal with the likes of anyone "different" around their neighborhoods. These things happened. Far more frequently than today, it was practically a different world. We just didn't have social media or digital data back then to record these incidents, like we do today. Over time, when all we have is history stored through memory, when we lose the individuals, we lose a lot of the history that isn't preserved.

Each decade our departments make progress. The previous decade had the least amount of crime of violence in America in decades. A significant drop-off from our most violent period in our nation's history, which peaked in the early to mid 90's. I could never claim to act like I know what it is like to be anyone other than myself, nor know or understand what their experiences are. All I can do is what I've always done. Talk to friends, strangers, people in the community, get their opinions and ideas, take all the information in, study the data and come up with what makes most logical sense to me. There are over 800,000 police officers in the United States. Most of them are good people. You don't get paid a lot of money to be a cop, the job is extremely dangerous, it doesn't get you chicks or fame. By and large, people enter the police academy because they want to do good. Because they want to stand up and protect the city they love while everyone else is sitting down. It's not a line of work you typically just fall into. You don't wake up one day and decide to put your life on the line and know every time you leave that front door you may never come home. It's one of the most dangerous jobs in America. And there are going to be bad ones. Of the 800,000, maybe even hundreds across the US. Maybe even in the thousands. In a vacuum, that's a lot, but overall it's still a small percentage. In a country of over 320 million people, we are always going to have a small demographic that appears large standing alone. In a country this heavily populated, you will always find large swaths of people who believe in a certain oddity, who are into strange things, and who are just plain evil.

For every cop who went into the academy to get back at his bullies from high school who wronged them, there are countless officers out there who dedicate their job everyday to helping total strangers. Cops who will stand in front of bullets to protect people. Cops who will run into burning buildings to save children. Cops who will go room by room in your home to make sure that intruder has left the premises. Detectives who will work cases for literally decades just to find justice for that one family who had a loved one horribly murdered. For every officer whose psyche is broken and altered by PTSD making them bitter, jaded, angry, and unfit to serve; there are officers out there battling through it every single day just to protect their cities. Suicide rates for cops are extremely high. They are subjected to the worst the world has to offer every single day of their lives. Inhumane atrocities and the depravities of man you could not even imagine. This is what the core essence of being a police officer is. It's what I've come to know in my years on this earth. Some family of mine and friends. Among the finest people I've ever known. Heroes to me and to the community. It breaks my heart that there are not more out there who've had the same experiences I've had with officers. Through no fault of their own. Sometimes because of mere bad luck and sometimes through injustices based on who they are and the color of their skin. Just like some people have shitty luck in relationships where you always seem to find shitty friends, romantic relationships, it can be the same way with cops. The great ones are out there, you just haven't found them yet. In fact, some probably wish they never do, because under most circumstances any encounter with an officer is likely accompanied by bad news one way or the other. It's the nature of the beast.

When people refer to individual officers as "the police" and say "the police" do this and "the police" that, I can't stress how shortsighted and ignorant that is. No matter how jaded and angry you may be, it should never take precedent over reason and understanding. We, as a society, can never reach common ground without understanding. They are individuals, just like all of us are. There are no "the whites," "the blacks," "the Hispanics," "the doctors," "the CEOs," etc. These are individual people doing a job. To demonize an entire entity for the actions of a small percentage is foolhardy and prejudiced. Of all the 800,000+ cops in America, each of them has a name. Officer Derek Chauvin was a bad cop. He's an individual. Being an officer doesn't and shouldn't define him, his character should, just as it should for all people. Every good, upstanding cop out there has a name too. People don't seem to care about the individual, only the entity they represent. Like professional athletes, humanity is lost and they are judged not on who they are, but what they're dressed as. They are fathers, brothers, sons, daughters, and mothers. Never lose sight of the humanity of others. Not just in this instance, but in all instances.

For those who want to improve those community-police relationships, the goal should under no circumstance be to defund the departments. Why police brutality exists is an extremely complex topic, that, no matter how many people will try to tell you, can not be summed up in any one sentence, regardless of what that sentence is.

Some issues include:

• Bad people becoming cops, therefore making bad cops.
• Inadequate training. Both in tactics and community relations.
• Racism.  
• Outdated policies(ie no-knock warrants, maneuvers and tactics used on detained persons, etc).
• Departments understaffed.
• Inadequate mental health care for officers with PTSD and mental illness.
• Not enough good, compassionate, caring, and motivated people applying to become officers and step up to make the changes needed they so desperately seek.
• Lack of accountability up top, not setting an example for cops who act inappropriately.
• Civilians not following orders.
• And yes, departments being underfunded.

What you won't hear from politicians pushing an agenda is police departments are generally underfunded. Departments are often stretched thin, the training suffers, they have to hire men and women potentially unfit to serve so they can fill a quota just to give them enough officers on the streets. Some departments don't even have the funds to form cold case units to solve old crimes, so families go their entire lives without ever finding justice. The more poorly departments are funded, the minority communities are adversely affected more than anyone. There will be less cops on the streets, and more unfit ones with improper training. Improved technology to hold officers accountable for wrongdoing will be impeded like upgraded body and dashboard cameras. Mental health care, which is already inadequate, will be no more so, putting more officers who have become unfit through PTSD or other mental health disorders unable to get well enough to continue to serve the community the way it needs to be served. Data and history has shown that more officers and better paid officers leads to less crime and safer communities. See Camden and New Orleans as two examples of this, and two departments who went about reform the proper way to reduce crime.

In 2013, Camden wanted to reform the department and hire more and better officers, but didn't have the money to do so. The department was then essentially dissolved and absorbed by the county and rebuilt back up with better funding, more officers, new and improved training and community relations. Crime has dropped in Camden significantly since. Research and studies have shown that more cops equates to less crime and actually less arrests, as more cops around are a deterrent to people committing less crime, thus less arrests will be the end result. In addition, better funding can help improve quality and frequency of training, like de-escalation and community relations training so police can better learn how to deal with a wide variety of individuals levels on an intimate level. Believe it or not, it helps. Community and police mutual trust is built through bonding, and bonding can only be built when each party understands how to talk to and relate to the other.

As for abolishing departments entirely? And yes, there are people calling for this, including writers for some of the country's top publications like the NY Times, so to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. I can't even imagine the ramifications of such a radical extremist idea. First of all, anyone on board with this idea needs to take a long look in the mirror and realize that the world doesn't revolve around you. There are people out there who need cops. The battered woman who suffered domestic abuse. The family of the murdered love one who need answers. The person who was attacked on the street because someone thought it would be fun to sucker punch him for a laugh. One study done by a Harvard researcher named Roland Fryer indicated that merely the effect of less police intervention known as "The Ferguson Effect" in areas where police, to avoid ridicule, are afraid to do their job properly after national police incident; can lead to over 1,000 additional homicides and 40,000 additional felonies over the next 2 years. Refuting the idea that less police presence will make communities safer. The inner cities, both where crime is more prevalent, and also where our nation's minority demographics are largest will be hit the hardest. There will be no one to keep the gangs, drugs, criminals in check, as the neighborhoods in these cities become the wild west, and innocent hardworking minority families have no one to keep them safe. The far far majority of violence in this country comes from person on person crime. Much of it motivated by gang violence and/or drugs. Personal relationships and emotions that drive people to kill. Police on civilian crime is far less frequent, though, always unacceptable regardless. It will be our underprivileged and less fortunate citizens who will suffer most in the end, which is the opposite of the equality and justice that people who want change are fighting for. Destroying the very change and progress so badly sought. It would, without question, be one of the worst things that has happened to this country in modern society, and anyone against this can't seem to provide sound plans or rationale on how this would be beneficial aside from strawman arguments and platitudes.

A minuscule vocal minority is trying to make the argument that if you defund or abolish police departments, that putting the money toward social or community programs will make cities safer. I can't stress enough how incredibly misguided, uneducated, and laughably naive this is. It goes to figure that from what I've seen, the majority of people who hold this opinion are a younger generations, who lack knowledge in what drives crime/criminals and how law-abiding citizens become criminals. The argument has been made that if you take away a person's "need" to become a criminal, you will stop crime. The truth is that being a criminal is, was, and will always be a choice. Now, that doesn't mean an individual doesn't deserve a second chance when if caught and have served their time, they are once again a free man or woman. Of course they do. But committing crimes will always be a choice. Crime isn't driven by need, it's driven by want. It's driven by entitlement, greed, selfishness, ego, narcissism, and sometimes pure evil. There are sadly and horribly countless homeless people in America, who could very well choose to go and steal for money, and don't. They make a choice to ask strangers for money on the street to survive. They make a choice to not break the law and take from others. Most people who commit crimes aren't even in that dire of circumstances. Most people who rob stores aren't Robin Hood, who go around to poor communities and help starving children. They use that money to buy sneakers, iPads, laptops, etc. Listen to interviews with serial bank robbers who tell you it's a compulsion, an addiction. They do it for the thrill, and what do people with money always want? More Money. Why do people commit murder? The 3 main motives are sex, greed, and revenge. Not necessity. Maybe for self-preservation on their part, but not for good moral rationale.

Human beings are flawed and as long as human beings are flawed, criminals will exist. There are plenty of criminals who grow up in amazing households, have amazing childhoods and either go down a wrong path or are inherently predisposed to selfish impulses. 80+% of murders in the United States are committed by someone the victim knows. In comparison, stranger murder is far less common. It's because to kill someone, you have to be driven by passion and emotion. It's far more likely emotion will be stoked when it's someone you know personally. Community and social programs will do nothing to prevent this.

Can these programs help to lower crime? Sure. It will take its time to have an impact and have a ripple effect that rejuvenates communities, but it can make a different. However, it needs to go hand-in-hand with law enforcement. When the criminals strike, and believe me they will strike, someone needs to be there to do the job so many are unwilling or unable to do, and that will always be the police. Not just to catch criminals, but to deter them. No human being is morally pure, we will always have momentary lapses of character and judgement that test us. The end result of those moments is far more dire if there is no threat of the police around the corner. We saw this very fact in recent weeks with citizens emboldened with looting, inspiring others to do so. How many more crimes do you think would be committed if cities relied more on civil justice instead? The numbers would skyrocket uncontrollably. Crime prevention is always going to be most successful when it is performed by those passionate about it. Those who do it for a living. Those who go out of their way to make a career out of it. Civil or neighborhood watch programs will always inherently lack that element, as, naturally, these individuals will have other personal and psychological distractions that will hinder full dedication or commitment to the work. I'm deeply troubled by the utter naivety of certain people in our political landscape who legitimately thinks this idea is reasonable or plausible. Maybe another institution that needs reform is our educational system, I wonder.

Another drawback of this, for those who think the United States has a gun problem, is disbanding and/or defunding police departments will increase gun ownership exponentially. Civilians will feel it necessary to arm and police themselves since there either will be less of or no officers around to do it, which will spark a dramatic increase in firearm deaths and overall crime rates... the majority of which, again, occur in the inner cities, which means more deaths in minority communities. Not to mention all the accidental firearm fatalities that will occur from people who have no experience using firearms not owning them This is the opposite of progress.

Ultimately, the best and most effective way to lower police brutality is a combination of changes. Spearheaded by holding officers responsible for wrongdoing. Severe repercussions for actions is always a significant deterrent no matter who you are. If your actions are going to get you in trouble or put you in prison, you are going to think twice before doing it. The influence has to not be defunding, but making sure every single officer who commits a vile act of injustice is held responsible. And that starts at the top. Voting in individuals who will fight to stop bias and corruption, and hiring responsible and respectable people on the police force who will stand for what's right. If you talk to any police officer, they'll tell you every department knows who the "unsavory" officers are. Guys no one wants to work with. Their records and amount of complaints speak for themselves as well. The sooner we start getting these guys out of law enforcement and holding ones who commit crimes and atrocities responsible, police brutality rates will continue to decline even more than they have been. That would be a good first step, accompanied by better training, reforming tactics and procedures that can lead to harm or death, and yes, civilians following orders. I know that no one on this planet likes being told what to do. However, if you feel like an officer has wronged you, the time to fight it is in court with a lawyer. Not when being pulled over and not resisting arrest. People have to realize that being placed under arrest isn't a debate, it's an order. Law enforcement is the authority, not you. Fighting back and getting confrontational will only increase your chances of being harmed. Be polite, be calm, and the far far majority of the time you will be okay.

All this combined with policy reforms and re-training will go a long way to help officers not instinctively resort to excessive maneuvers to detain people. I'm not in support of total ban of choke holds, however. They should still be allowed when an officer's life is in potential danger. Sometimes perpetrators are much bigger and stronger than an officer, and an officer has to use certain tactics of maneuvers to detain an individual or they can find themselves overpowered and possibly having their firearm taken from them, which not only will put their life in danger, but the lives of nearby civilians. Remember, officers are responsible for the safety of all people in proximity to whatever incident is taking place.

2020 has been an arduous year on so many levels. I've never seen this country as hurt, sad, restless, angry, and hopeless. So, I do understand the desperation that is formed out of these emotions, and the presence of desperation throughout history has been known to spawn radical ideas. I've heard a lot of dumb and asinine ideas in my life, but possibly none more foolish and horribly misguided that has actual backing than the defunding or disbanding of our nation's police departments. Thankfully, in a country this densely populated, it seems to be only a select number of people thus far. Mainly propagated by those who have insulted themselves to listening to social media cliches and talking points, and haven't taken the time to understand or put in the research to study the dynamics of law enforcement, the data, and its relation to crime and their communities. This is a snippet from a Cato.Org national survey on the feelings of all racial demographics on American police:

You can find the full article here: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/poll-finds-americans-are-not-divided-policing-headlines-suggest



As anger and passion subsides, I expect that number to be less as people come to their senses. A significant majority support the funding and presence of law enforcement, they just want reform to eliminate injustices. Most of that reform is centered around cracking down on rogue/bad cops and prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law. Which is already happening, and hopefully will continue to at an even greater frequency with more and improved reforms. I sincerely hope the good people of this country don't have to learn the hard way. That real and rational solutions are created through logic and reason, not through raw emotion. The very same emotion I almost caught myself succumbing to in recent days. For a short while I was ashamed to be an American with all this talk about killing and ridding this country of cops. Then, I gathered myself and remembered to think clearly and understand that as is almost always the case, this is a vocal minority, not the norm. And my faith in humanity was promptly restored. Most sane and level-headed people, despite acknowledging that police departments have flaws that need changing, believe this country is still far better off with them than without them. If you listen to those who worked in law enforcement, currently work in law enforcement, study crime, and are well educated on these matters; the far majority of them are against defunding the police and are unanimously against abolishing police. It's mainly a younger generation of uneducated idealists who don't know much about the subject and are being fed misinformation by those with agendas or nefarious intentions. In the end, one thing I'll always believe in is mankind. We've gotten this far, and I look forward to seeing how much further we can take ourselves as a people.