To me, this was one of the really confusing things about the Kaepernick affair. He found a really effective way to get people to notice him, but then he flatly refused to say anything about it once he had people's attention. It was like, "Well what the hell are you trying to raise awareness of?" For that reason it all seemed so pointless to me. Police brutality is probably one of the toughest nuts to crack from a public policy point of view, because in the end it's law enforcement who, well, enforce the law. There's a low probability that they're going to enforce the law on themselves and their comrades. This may be a counter-intuitive thought, but maybe they need to be paid more, like a lot more. I feel the same about teachers, which is that they sign up for a hard job for shitty pay, and then they get frustrated when everyone shits on them (I know many teachers and every single one is an idealist and a great person at heart, but also very frustrated about the way they are treated by everyone from parents to politicians to society writ large). If in both cases the pay were higher (say, double), you'd probably attract a different crowd for different reasons and your accountability structure would change commensurately. Where cops diverge from teachers in that the weapons and authority probably attract sadists at a higher than baseline rate (full disclosure the only cop I ever knew very well personally, who is dead now, was a gigantic piece of shit racist and also not very smart). Right now the barrier to entry is just far too low to be a police officer, but upping the bar would make it so basically no one would ever become a cop. The only way to solve that problem is to pay them more, and then to make accountability really, really high.But eventually, aspirations have to be translated into specific laws and institutional practices — and in a democracy, that only happens when we elect government officials who are responsive to our demands.
The character profile of an officer shouting "Light 'em up!" and shooting anti-riot ordinance at people on their own porches does not find this an effective recruiting video. Would you like to see their preference? This is 30 seconds of Googling. This is what the American law enforcement mentality thinks is necessary to serve and protect Knott's Berry Farm. This isn't a money issue. I did an episode of "Jesse James is a Dead Man" with a whole bunch of police officers about a week after Oscar Grant. Asked the guy I was riding with whether you can mix up your taser for your sidearm and the guy was all "no. No way. They're balanced differently, they weigh different amounts, they arm and fire differently, there's no way you can make that mistake." And then he said "But everybody has a bad day every now and then." Now - there's something in that second recruitment video that selects for people whose bad day can theoretically involve shooting someone in the back by mistake. I don't think it's the fault of the people doing it, I don't think it's the fault of the guys cutting the video. I think it's the fault of a culture that looks at the North Hollywood Shootout and thinks the solution is to escalate the arms race, rather than de-escalate it. I think it's the fault of a budgeting system that allows holes to be patched through civil forfeiture and military surplus. I think it's the fault of turning everything into a "war on..." and cultivating an us v them mentality that exists only in law enforcement, not in firefighting, not in the military, not in the FBI. I think if you take a bunch of guys, armor and arm them against assault weapons, tell them that anyone around them could be a lawbreaking murderer with a machine gun and let them know that any plunder they get from the baddies goes directly into their coffers You are not going to attract the violence-averse to a violence-prone job no matter how much money you throw at it. If you would like your police forces to serve and protect all their citizens, you need to shape the job such that servers will do it. Because right now it's all about the takers.
I agree. I'll just add that the problems of Jim Crow and its precursors and legacy, as well as, e.g. asset forfeiture are problems of bad law. Obviously law enforcement, even if they're good people, need good laws to enforce or else what's the point? When politicians make bad law, we get bad outcomes. That's also part of Obama's point.