(Y CBC's ‘Workin’ Moms’ highlights and
reinforces sexism

(Y #BellLetsTalk’s corporate and systematic
campaign

(¥Y The ethics of animal welfare and
consumption

And more!

Police using fatal force in
escalated incidents

> When is it ok to kill?

Cazzy Lewchuk
Opinions Editor

 

'o be a cop is a challenging job in
both duties and ethics. In many
cases, you are making decisions that are
life-or-death. Police are equipped with

Tasers and guns to use in defence of
themselves or others, weapons capable
of subduing or killing a perpetrator.
There are definitely cases in
which police have no choice but to
lall. Ifa suspect is putting someone
else in serious danger or fatal risk, the
unfortunate reality is that you must
kill to save someone else’s life.
Nevertheless, I believe fatal force
is an issue not discussed or challenged
enough in police circles. In many cases
where someone was killed by police, it
could have been prevented, and killing
someone is almost never the best solution.
Lives are very important, and one’s right
to life is not forfeited just because they
got into a confrontation with police.
The #BlackLivesMatter movement
seeks to stop members of the Black
community from being killed while in
confrontation with police. In many of
the specific cases cited, these people

   

Image via Wikimedia

were deliberately murdered by police in

a confrontation while unarmed and not
resisting arrest. In some of the cases where
the victim did have a weapon, they were
not forcefully using it or attempting to
hurt others around them. There is a huge

element of racism in these cases, and
people of colour are constantly mistreated
and dealt with by police in ways that

a white person in the same situation
would likely not be. The race argument

is often glazed over for the argument

Petitions do almost nothing

> There are more effective ways to get things done

Cazzy Lewchuk
Opinions Editor

 

RE“ time there’s some kind of
injustice—and there are a great many
in the world—I see a petition going
around online begging to be signed.
Sometimes these are over smaller and
local issues such as asking the Vancouver
School Board to reconsider re-naming
a school. Others are of a much larger
and near-impossible variety, such as
asking the US Electoral College to
completely dismantle their system
and elect a candidate who won the
popular vote instead. (They didn't.)
The larger the scale the demand of
a petition is (and the higher powers it
has to go to, as a result) the less likely it
is to be effective. The powers that be of
government and authority do not listen
to signatures. They listen to protests,
actual voices, and votes. (Obviously, when
there’s not an election going on anymore,
voting is irrelevant.) Many petitions
don't actually reach the powers they’re
trying to, or are completely disregarded.
Smaller petitions do actually lead
to change sometimes, as the authority
figure they are being presented may
not necessarily be one with ridiculous
amounts of power. School kids

petitioning a principal have better luck
than citizens petitioning a president,
because less people are affected and
there’s more room for negotiation.

Enacting social change is about
speaking loudly and clearly, and an
intangible petition simply doesn’t carry
that sound. This rings particularly true if
the demand is something outlandish or
impossible to enact. Social change can and
does happen on a large scale, sometimes
rapidly, but it involves discussion and
room for reasonability. A long list of
signatures demanding the government
do something they're not going to do
simply doesn't work. A group of concerned
citizens specifically lobbying for specific
changes through action often does work.
Actions speak louder than words, and
a petition isn’t much of an action.

Today I am inspired by the
Women’s March on Washington (and
similar marches involving millions of
people around the world) protesting
the misogynistic new president and
advocating for women’s rights in
general. Unlike petitions, protests are
physical, disruptive, and demanding.

A thousand bodies are a lot more
effective than a thousand signatures. A
thousand phone calls to a government
representative is probably even more so.

Shee Satine

ee
Te?

TOS

Eo xriarnt
ame y® &

athe
ee ee ee
dmdoten = Be smp
eo Var ptt fe Pe Cn +
pea os = OF Carew ten ed de Ban

Pipe Se hore Vag
Fen ot:

Ban as nee pee
ef 2 *

FE BTG ptotinn t ps

 

that police were “just doing their jobs.’

A police officer’s job is not to kill
people. Ideally, they would never have to
jill anyone, and should only do so as a last
resort. Many are killed by police for simple
reasons such as reaching inside their
pockets, not completely cooperating with
an officer’s orders, or charging at them with
a knife or other weapon that isn’t a gun.

There are many ways to subdue
people that do not involve using fatal force.
Even if a gun is necessary (as opposed
to pepper spray, batons, or Tasers),
gunshots can be fired in a way that does
not immediately kill. There are also many
guns tested and used by police that shoot
bullets designed to injure but not to kill,
such as those made of rubber. A shoot-
to-kill mentality is not a healthy one,
particularly if it is used at the start of a
confrontation instead of after escalation.

There is a growing belief in society
that police are entitled to kill whoever
they want, as long as that person is
automatically judged to be a danger. All
deaths caused by police are a tragedy, and
every single one should be investigated.
Many of them are justified, maybe even
the majority, but I still feel there are many
cases in which the death was unnecessary.

Caen 2
Peae Sree =
Rea

fon.

tb weciax. Ahr ot Rat in

cme?

Soe

De ee
‘dials. eee

a he a
C22 Oe
earchal -
ee eee Se Prtigee
Bp elon fia A--2 Garad

—e. Bist

sari Zt
Shia gta ae an ER oecaalll
SOA Re ta Pte Er

Image via Thinkstock