I didn't see anything there that improved public safety. I saw an apparently well meaning if patronising list of things to do in situations that weren't actually unsafe, (apart from the last one) being glibly presented as a way to maintain safety without involving the police.

The last one was the tell - minimizing domestic violence put paid any suggestion that this wasn't ideologically based, rather than written with genuineness or intelligence. And I say this as someone who has witnessed first hand the destructiveness of involving the police in a domestic violence issue (they cuffed and jailed my friend because his wife had severely beaten him). I would still call the cops. There's no one else to call.

so you witnessed the police abuse their power with your friend, but you still think that's the best bet?

i don't think you're the target audience. Since this post was about you being the person your friend called. you know, instead of the police.

There's not been a police shooting in my city for many years, and I suspect it's similar in many other small cities in the USA.

Are we talking about people in neighborhoods patrolled by officers of a different race?

Are we talking about people who are or have been engaged in prohibited activity?

Are we talking about big strong men who don't fear violence against themselves because they don't feel they're a target?

Where's the nuance?

We're talking about the generalized case, as per the article. It would be noble to try to derive dynamic advice based on variables, but probably not realistic. People either trust or distrust their local police based on the information available to them and their experiences, which may be limited, but we all still make forced judgement calls regardless.

I don't think that's right.

In general we have police because they at some point were deemed necessary for public order.

When was it generally agreed that police are detrimental to community life?

EDIT: The top line is from theanarchistlibrary.org

Who are the target audience of a publication like that? What kind of person reads the anarchist library, what do they have in common?

> they at some point were deemed necessary for public order.

yeah, around when those pesky slaves were escaping and their owners sent squads out to collect their missing property.

I'm not sure this is the butt-slam you were hoping for, partner.

You're trying to bait me. I think we both know policing has a history and tradition in areas of the United States that outlawed slavery long prior to the civil war.

I'm not using any political rhetoric, and never accused anarchists of being criminals.

"cops were made for community welfare" is ahistorical political rhetoric. apologies for taking provocation from your hints about questioning anarchist audience/motive in relation to community welfare.

btw, the circle around the anarchist Ⓐ means "order" - anarchists are as interested in community as you are, the difference is in terms of political means (anarchists don't believe the state, legal and state-sponsored policing systems have community's best interests in mind or incentive). anarchist literature is for everyone.