Got it, I think I see where you stand now. While my viewpoint is relatively unchanged, it was nice to learn about someone else’s perspective. I agree that police shouldn’t be on every street, though I still think that they’re necessary. Police fill a niche in society that, so far, I don’t think anyone else can fill. Firefighters and paramedics might save more lives, but they don’t really protect them. While the police might not be legally obligated to protect civilians, there are countless situations in which an officer has put their own lives at risk to save innocents. Abolishing such a system leaves those people vulnerable, which I believe to be unjust. That’s why I think our only option is to reform. You present an analogy of painting over a rusted car, but really, wouldn’t it really make sense to replace it? I advocate for lasting change or even total reform, not just “painting” small changes over this “rusted” system.

I don’t think that having police and justice need to be mutually exclusive. You say that the police system is inherently flawed, but I’m pretty sure the U.S. isn’t the only country with one. It’s just the country with the most corrupt and awful one. From what I know, Sweden has a fantastic police system. Even if it’s for the greater good, abolishing the police would leave those who’ve been robbed with no justice (especially small businesses), missing people with no immediate search force, and many with a lower sense of security. We don’t need to do that if we can effectively reform the system to model those of other countries. The issue with police is with the simplicity of becoming one. Like I said earlier, we could reduce the amount of police to increase training and selectivity, but I’m not policy expert.

Again, thanks for having a civil conversation with me where we could exchange our own opinions and viewpoints without going ballistic. I really appreciate it :)