Also, why are you suggesting that my position is "middle class privilege" when you're suggesting that you understand ad-hoc prison justice systems?

I've actually found "deal directly with the person with whom you have the issue" is a good default rule in most areas of life (work, social, etc.) even where the issue is the kind of thing for which there is an available authority.

Recourse to authority when that fails, or when there is a specific reason in the immediate case to believe that dealing directly will be ineffective or involve intolerable risks is still part of the equation, but not the default action.

Last on the list of possible outcomes is that the cops stop the "bad guy" and everyone is hunky dory.

Contrast that to the white/middle class historical experience of police being generally helpful and protective. Middle class white people call the police (predominately other middle class white people), and good things happen. Then they wonder why everyone doesn't just call the police when they need some help. That's privilege.

That said, please stop perpetuating a strawman argument. You've taken the most extreme interpretation of the original statement, propped it up and vilified it. Considering all the possible ways you could have interpreted the statement, I think you are doing the writer a disservice.

I learned that you should go straight to the person you're upset with rather than go to authorities.

Your response:

This is bullshit and dumb advice. If someone steals my bike and I find out who it is, I'm not going to go to his apartment and beat him to death in the middle of the day (smart money on confronting a scumbag not leading to a productive conversation).

So it appears you are interpreting "go straight to" as "confront with violence"?

There are any number of circumstances where going to the person you believe responsible may be beneficial over including the authorities. For example:

1) You are wrong in who you think perpetrated the crime. Involving the authorities may cause great harm to that individual, event if they are found innocent. Talking to them first may clear up misunderstandings.

2) It was a misunderstanding. Maybe there wasn't even a crime, what you thought you saw/experienced wasn't the case. Getting a fuller picture may result in your reassessment of the situation.

3) You don't think the punishment meted out will fit the crime committed, and you want to give them a chance to make amends. Maybe they are young, and you can speak to a parental figure to try to resolve the issue.

4) You have some relation to them or people close to them that you would rather not sour.

That isn't to say don't go to the authorities. Of course there are cases where you go directly to the authorities. I doubt the author would dispute that.

The real world is a place of nuance. I feel confident asserting that you know this to some degree. Acting like it isn't doesn't do anything useful, least of all lead to a conversation that has much benefit.

Are you suggesting that the victims of police indifference and misconduct are actually to blame for those? That doesn't really contradict the "privilege" diagnosis.