If you feel prosecuting police brutality doesn't work, you have to work other angles (maybe many angles at once), and while Ford employees have no power within the legal system, this is an angle where Ford employees do at least have a voice.

They aren't implying vehicles have something to do with the problem.

It's not a well thought out protest. Do the Ford employees expect the cops to jog to their house when someone has broken in?

Taking a position that gets noticed feels "well thought out" to me.

Individually we all can't solve it all, but if they're able to take this stand and make it uncomfortable enough for management, they've done something that may contribute to the changes they're looking for.

Like, say, Amazon de-listing Washington Redskins merch. I personally love that move. Maybe, collectively, these things lead to the changes.

If police departments feel pressure in many different ways, they may start allowing for leadership and changes that have a material impact in the way they operate.

If Ford stops making custom police vehicles and products, it will not prevent current police fleets from rolling nor will it prevent police from buying regular production vehicles.

If that's your concern, consider it allayed.

It's not like Police nation-wide are required to purchase Ford vehicles.

It's a giant cash cow for Ford. This will only hurt Ford.

Police already have vehicles... and they can source new vehicles from any other willing company... even if it was a foreign company like Toyota.

I think the point would be more in the statement it makes, not really blocking the police from getting vehicles.

Ford employees, unless in management, mostly belong to the UAW. That has power within the political system.

Yes, I agree and anticipated responses like this. It's good people are brainstorming I suppose.

However, I feel like there are much more direct ways of getting there. The marches on city halls, for example.

It has been tried but the laws protecting police were broadly written before the supreme court invented qualified immunity. When every court case ends with either 'well he said he feared for his life when confronting this sitting/fleeing subject so it was a good shoot' or 'well this is clearly a violation of your rights but the courts haven't ruled that in this exact situation before so we can't expect the cop to have realized that' is it surprising that people are starting to look for other avenues to express their disapproval?

>It has been tried but the laws protecting police were broadly written before the supreme court invented qualified immunity.

qualified immunity isn't the issue here. qualified immunity only protects against civil lawsuits. While it would be great if victims of police brutality can go after their attackers in civil court, the bigger issue is that prosecutors/police are refusing to go after the attackers in criminal court. Having to pay 500k in damages because you shot some unarmed black guy in the back sucks, but getting locked up for 10+ years sucks more.

That's what the first thing I was talking about is, the laws that only require that the officer says they were afraid and don't have a 'reasonable fear' language. Prosecutors generally don't take cases they can't win and if the office only needs to be afraid they can always say they were and there's no requirement that their fear be in any way backed up by the situation.

How does a Ford employee prosecute a police officer?

They don't, but even getting involved in government is a more direct route to change than this.