The problem with the police killings is the police state

Published on New York Times blog in response to news article, “Protests erupt across U.S. over George Floyd’s death,” May 30, 2020:

The scene is familiar: Someone, often black, is targeted as a suspect. The officers assault him. He doesn’t resist, except to plead to not be hurt or killed. The officers are unmoved by such pleas.

They want to dominate you, violently, and any protest is for them incitement. It confirms the situation as one of antagonism, which to them can only mean violence.

Often, in situations involving any kind of governance, “violence” names disagreement. Anyone who has ever been “accused” of “raising their voice” and so threatened with likely punishment knows what I mean. In a police state, disobedience is inferred from the zero tolerance for it, while dissent is routinely called “violence.”

If someone with police powers suspects you of disobeying them, you may be instantly subjected to violence or threats of it. Refusal to obey any order will be used to legitimate violence instantly. If you seem to not appreciate this, or protest in any way, just as police will say you are resisting, they will hurt you more. They don’t consider what they are doing and whether it is just; they merely react, and punish all deviance. They may believe you are assaulting them while the assault you. (And if, as often, the enforcer is black and you are white, they are expected to think you racist. Which is why the police state must be opposed and its militarism dismantled, and not just the racist attitudes that have made black lives appear to matter so little.)

A police state is a rule by people giving orders, unrestrained by law. Having elected representatives and freedom of speech (in contexts outside those of governance) does not change this. Police states are murderous. It is the norm. How did we get here?