> Up a level: why were "activists" protesting Cop City at all? I thought "more training" was the thing people were always agitating for.
If this is an honest question, it must be coming from a lack of knowledge about policing in the U.S. for the last two decades:
After 9/11-- and especially after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq-- there was an escalation in militarized police tactics, equipment and grants. Some of this started in the preceding decades during the war on drugs. But anti-terrorism federal grants and many other sources of funding for militarization training and equipment flowed like rivers post 9/11. This funding was-- and mostly still is-- available to police from the largest cities to the smallest municipality. This and the war on drugs have become a sizable chunk of police department budgets. If you go to a town of 1,000 people and see a local police humvee vehicle tooling around, they got it at least in part through some militarization or anti-drug grant. Possibly both. (Note: if there's a dog in the humvee it's probably the latter, which means the department has an ongoing obligation to show stats for how they've been using this equipment and dog in successful anti-drug efforts. Not sure what the obligations are for the anti-terror grants, though.)
By at least the 2010's, critics on both the left and right were speaking about the problems of this approach to policing. Essentially, a) it creates/exacerbates an "police vs. citizens" approach to policing that's at odds with the core goal of police being a community service for citizens, and b) there isn't enough time in a day nor money in a municipality to train police to do public safety and develop the skills necessary to competently use military anti-terrorism/anti-insurgency tactics and equipment.
The activists who aren't radical-- e.g., the ones who aren't anti-state-- typically want more (I'd say better) training on the public safety side of things. This means things like de-escalation techniques, outreach with citizens, partnering with social workers, detective work, etc.
What you will nearly never hear police reform activists in the U.S. agitating for is more militarization training and equipment for the police. That includes a number of the civil libertarians on the right.
Finally, I'll say that the activists I've read are convinced that Cop City is all about funding more militarized training of Atlanta PD. I don't know enough about the plans to know whether that's true or not. But the idea of activists pushing back against ostensible police militarization training/funding is in keeping with two decades of efforts on the left-- and right-- to protect the bill of rights in the 21st century.
> it must be coming from a lack of knowledge about policing in the U.S. for the last two decades
I think you're saying "doesn't agree with me." There's no lack of knowledge -- there's only a lack of indoctrination.
American cops are American cops. Crime spiked up until 1990 or so, then it was brought under control, and lately it's been spiking again. I think some people like you consider that a reasonable price to pay for whatever goals you're trying to achieve.
If this is an honest question, it must be coming from a lack of knowledge about policing in the U.S. for the last two decades:
After 9/11-- and especially after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq-- there was an escalation in militarized police tactics, equipment and grants. Some of this started in the preceding decades during the war on drugs. But anti-terrorism federal grants and many other sources of funding for militarization training and equipment flowed like rivers post 9/11. This funding was-- and mostly still is-- available to police from the largest cities to the smallest municipality. This and the war on drugs have become a sizable chunk of police department budgets. If you go to a town of 1,000 people and see a local police humvee vehicle tooling around, they got it at least in part through some militarization or anti-drug grant. Possibly both. (Note: if there's a dog in the humvee it's probably the latter, which means the department has an ongoing obligation to show stats for how they've been using this equipment and dog in successful anti-drug efforts. Not sure what the obligations are for the anti-terror grants, though.)
By at least the 2010's, critics on both the left and right were speaking about the problems of this approach to policing. Essentially, a) it creates/exacerbates an "police vs. citizens" approach to policing that's at odds with the core goal of police being a community service for citizens, and b) there isn't enough time in a day nor money in a municipality to train police to do public safety and develop the skills necessary to competently use military anti-terrorism/anti-insurgency tactics and equipment.
The activists who aren't radical-- e.g., the ones who aren't anti-state-- typically want more (I'd say better) training on the public safety side of things. This means things like de-escalation techniques, outreach with citizens, partnering with social workers, detective work, etc.
What you will nearly never hear police reform activists in the U.S. agitating for is more militarization training and equipment for the police. That includes a number of the civil libertarians on the right.
Finally, I'll say that the activists I've read are convinced that Cop City is all about funding more militarized training of Atlanta PD. I don't know enough about the plans to know whether that's true or not. But the idea of activists pushing back against ostensible police militarization training/funding is in keeping with two decades of efforts on the left-- and right-- to protect the bill of rights in the 21st century.