The thing is, you can go to youtube and watch any number of videos of police beating a helpless person while yelling “Stop resisting!” at the top of their lungs. You can also see plenty of videos of cops saying “he’s going for my gun” or something similar when in fact the suspect is face down on the pavement with 4 or 5 officers on top of him. Hell, just trying to not get hit is “resisting” in cop-speak and justifies the very beating a person is trying to avoid.
I have zero confidence that the officer’s accounts are truthful or accurate.
Police in the United States killed more people in March 2015 than police in the UK have killed in the last 115 years.
Anyone think there might be some chance that police in the US are at least a little more likely on average to resort to deadly force than they absolutely need to be?
This is irrelevant. Legalize and regulate drugs, and 80% of the problem will go away. There’s a meth clinic across from my work that supplies ultra-pure meth, along with medical care and counseling. THAT’S how you deal with addiction. Give people a clean supply, medical care and counseling, and then teach/help them to have a fuller life so they won’t NEED an addiction to help them function.
Between marijuana legalization and self-driving cars coming out in 5 years, we’re going to see a lot less of this bullshit, thank goodness.
The US has a lot more gun violence than the UK – the US has about 9000 gun murders per year, and the UK has only about 30 gun murders per year – adjust for population, and we find that the US has about 60 times the gun homicides per capita of the UK.
But this is not even close to the difference in killings-by-police: 12 months * 115 years * ~300 mil/~60 mil = 6900… the US has 6900 times more killings by police per capita than the UK.
Those numbers are two orders of magnitude apart. There is way more going on here than just a difference in gun violence.
No-one (well, almost no-one) who advocates drug legalization has suggested that anti-social and dangerous behavior will be eliminated. In the same way that alcohol often contributes to illegal activity, legal drugs would also contribute to criminal activity.
But legalization allows you to focus on the actual criminal behavior that sometimes results from alcohol or drug abuse, rather than criminalizing the simple use of alcohol or drugs. You’re right that the legalization of alcohol hasn’t eliminated drunk driving and public intoxication, but neither have drunk driving and public intoxication been the main contributors to America’s swelling prison population and the militarization of its police forces.
If we legalize at least some drugs, and treat them as the medical problems that they are, and deal with the criminal behavior that is sometimes associated with drug use, that would not only reduce crime, but might have salutary health and social consequences as well. As it is, a large percentage of the criminal activity associated with drugs is a direct or indirect product of the illegal status of those drugs.
This is stupid. No matter how good our policies and treatments are, there will ALWAYS be people who abuse drugs (whether alcohol, meth, cocaine, whatever), and there will always be times when such abuse results in anti-social or criminal behavior. I agree with you about many of the salutary effects of legalization, but let’s not get carried away into cloud-cuckoo land here.
Well, there was the case of the 7-year-old shot while asleep on the couch. Nobody got fired over that.
Then there was the 2-year-old in his crib in Atlanta who was burned almost to death by a flashbang grenade thrown into his crib. Nobody lost their job either for that. That little boy will likely never recover, from what I’ve read, BTW. From a fucking greNADE thrown into a private residence where nobody present even had a gun or was dealing drugs.
Then there was the mother who got shot and killed when the cop fell down while trying to shoot her dog. Nobody fired there either, it seems.
Then there was the 18-year-old who was shot through a windowless door because the officer thought the battering ram sound from the back of the house was gunfire. The boy had no gun, was not resisting, and didn’t even know what was happening. Nobody fired there EITHER.
Do you want links? That’s just ones I can recall immediately. There’s more.
“And I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free…” to get murdered in cold blood by the police, so it seems.
He’s asking for help - to understand which of those apparently legal, apparently accidental killings was a cold-blooded murder. Help that hopefully you can provide, as you’re the one that made that claim.
How about you explain how it’s illegal, as you’re the one making the claim, then explain how come the shooter hasn’t been convicted, if you’re so sure. Then explain why you haven’t forwarded the evidence that convinced you to the relevant prosecutor.
Or, accept that you’re full of shit and shut up.
Oh, and as everyone should know, the reason it would be legal is that, presumably, the shooter reasonably believed that shooting was necessary for his safety or the safety of others. That he was wrong in that belief is irrelevant.
District attorneys try to avoid successfully prosecuting the police. It’s a common tendency. If the DA won’t make a good-faith effort to prosecute, then the law stops mattering.
In the case of the 7 year old who was shot in Detroit, there were two mistrials(hung jury) of the police officer. IIRC they lowered the charge after the first mistrial then dropped the charges after the second.
And destroyed any remaining faith any black person in Detroit might have had in the local criminal justice system. You can’t just shoot sleeping children. People don’t like it, it seems. It also looks like that cop still has his job. That’s sickening.