How to start the educational process

[Christian Liberty]

OK, so there was a discussion at my house regarding the Garner case, after which a discussion on race-baiting and racial issues came up (just as a note: thank God, nobody supported the murder of Garner...) I was going to make a comment about how even though I don't like to make things about race, it is clear that NYC's "Stop and Frisk" program was one way or another mainly targeted at African-Americans. I prefaced this comment by saying "you know, I'm not one to race-bait, as you know, if anything I'm generally anti-police but I'm not inclined to make things about race..."

Now, between my father and I, this stuff is nothing new. My dad knows pretty much what I mean by a statement like that, how far I would and wouldn't take it, so its not really an issue (his perspective isn't the same as mine, but its a problem.) However, from a couple other people who don't normally hear my political views, I received questions motivated by bewilderment. Not hostility, just bewilderment.

How do you explain a viewpoint like that in five minutes? What's the best way to answer the question "why are you anti-police" in a brief period of time? And is that just plain a poor educational tactic?

BTW: Yes, I'm aware there are a lot of different views that could fall under the "anti-police" label, which is the point.

[otherone]

Try saying you are "pro-police accountability" instead.

[staerker]

Try saying you are "pro-police accountability" instead.

Well, that wouldn't quite be accurate, as he (I believe) is truly anti-police. As we all should be; the institution is invalid.

But I guess it's a nice way to ease people into the idea.

[CaptUSA]

I usually say that if the job of the police were to stop "crimes" or to hold people accountable for "crimes", that'd be one thing. But in most cases, they blindly enforce "laws" that were enacted to prevent liberty rather than ensure it. Too often, there is no victim until the police show up and make one.