I thought the thread was about cops?
But it would be 400 million if the cops would stop killing people.
So, people that kill their “intimate partner” are not criminals?
Sorry, it’s a typo…posted that from my phone, which is always trying to ‘help’ me. It should have been 300 million and also, there are over a million police so the ‘nearly’ should have been ‘over’. But yes, you are correct.
So, how many of those Utah police killings were the result of something other than the officer having the reasonable belief (under circumstances as he reasonably believed them to be) that either he or someone else was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm?
While there are some number of unwarranted killings by police, the real question should be “Why do so many people in the U.S. behave in a manner that leads the police to use deadly force?” There seems to be a complete lack of accountability on the part of the actors/suspects themselves.
Hats off to the cops who did nothing when the kid pointed a rifle at them. I’m sure the fact that they were “professionals” would be of great comfort to their survivors had that kid chosen to fire. Point a gun at me and you are very likely going to be shot. YOU made the choice to place me in fear for my life and YOU must deal with the consequences.
Finally, I fail to see why people have a problem with cops placing their own safety before that of suspects. There is nothing wrong with having going home to your family at the end of your shift as a (or even THE) priority. Cops are no paid enough, nor could they be, to intentionally place some non-compliant, criminal’s safety above their own. Its not “their job” or “what they signed up for”. The concept is absolutely ridiculous.
The people in the U.S. have a hell of a lot more guns. Bad guys / nutters will be in conflict with the law. It’s what they do. The problem is that in the U.S., the bad guys / nutters are far more likely to be armed with a gun.
I would presume he meant professional criminals, the mirror images of the cops, without whose existence Law has no meaning.
Apart from any other justification, one can’t run a lucrative penal system without guests.
Well, they are dead, so it’s not as though we can really ask them whether they thought they were in the wrong.
That said, I think your first sentence jumps some very big questions - what is that “some number” of unwarranted killing by police, what number or range would be “reasonable” or expected in comparison with similar nations or between states, are there any factors which correlate with a higher chance to be killed without good reason… lots, really. Skipping such questions doesn’t just indicate that the answers are acceptable - but that they’re unimportant.
Who’s talking about cases where someone points a gun at a cop? Look at the videos for the guy in the Walmart aisle or the kid in the park. They never pointed their (toy) guns at the cops, and never had a chance to follow any instructions, if any were shouted in the few milliseconds before the cops opened fire. The cops appeared and shot them on sight. There are other instances where people are shot who are unarmed. No weapon is pointed at any cops, yet they are shot numerous times. You are throwing up a red herring, talking about people pointing guns at cops.
Because that phrase, and mindset, is a window into how the police who say it think about their job and the responsibilities that go along with it. It’s not that going home at the end of the shift shouldn’t be a priority, it’s that cops who seemingly proudly say that have already made their mind up that force, even deadly force, is a first or early option, and that everyone they meet are predetermined to be “non-compliant criminals”. Yes, cops should go home to their families at the end of the day, but so should non-cops (I’m hesitant to use the term “citizens” for non-police, as cops are citizens too) who don’t do anything to threaten anyone.
They’re dead. Thats why they are not accountable.
Also, from the examples in this thread, it seems that behaving in such a manner does not llead to getting shot by cops in other countries.
Because they are cops. I don’t know what kind of fundamental assumptions operate in the US, but over here, part of a cops job is to put the safety of others above his own. People who cannot do that should be sluiced out during their education, so they don’t end up in a police force.
Firemen and soldiers operate under similar assumptions.
O.K., let me have a go at these one at at time.
“Well, they are dead, so it’s not as though we can really ask them whether they thought they were in the wrong.”
I’m not even sure what that means but I’m not advocating that we ask people if they were right or wrong. What I’m saying is that whenever police are perceived to have employed too much force people often leave out the part that suspect/subject on the receiving end was being, at least, non-compliant and sometimes outright felonious in their actions. The recent case of the guy with a rifle on a crime spree who was then run down by a police car has people crying about excessive force. They leave out the rifle, crime spree, fired shot etc. Granted, there seems to be more support of the cops in this case than many others. This is why I, and most cops I know, are 100% in favor of cameras.
The reason I say “some number” of unwarranted killings is because I know this is a non-zero number but I have no idea what it is. Does anyone? If cops are cleared, as they are most of the time, the hue and cry is often, “Coverup, Blue Wall of Silence” etc. Look at Michael Brown as an example. If your mind is already made up, no amount of evidence will change it.There is no number of acceptable unwarranted killings. Not even one. Cops who kill without just cause should be held accountable. I have no problem with that.
“Who’s talking about cases where someone points a gun at a cop?”
Up thread someone related the story of how a kid in the UK was walking around with a rifle and pointing it at cops. The took him into custody without firing a shot and were hailed as “professionals”. Its a simple fact that, if you can see the muzzle of a gun, it can see you. It is not humanly possible to “duck” a bullet traveling at 2300’ per second. Now, if there’s something about the rifleman’s demeanor that makes you comfortable enough to not shoot - fine. But I would certainly not fault any officer for shooting someone who was pointing a rifle at him. The whole concept of “going home at the end of the shift” is meant to instill in cops that their safety comes before the suspects. Not that everyone is a criminal or force (of any sort) is a first option. If cops were really of the “Me. First and always.” mindset you wouldn’t have them pulling people out of burning cars, searching dark buildings for suspects, going in alone against active shooters and stopping cars at 2:00 AM with the nearest backup fifteen minutes away. Only occasionally do these things get any press. It just doesn’t sell many papers.
“Because they are cops. I don’t know what kind of fundamental assumptions operate in the US, but over here, part of a cops job is to put the safety of others above his own. People who cannot do that should be sluiced out during their education, so they don’t end up in a police force. Firemen and soldiers operate under similar assumptions.”
The fundamental assumption of officers in the US is that the safety of SUSPECTS takes a back seat to theirs. Not the public at large. “Suspects” includes anyone who the officer may be taking enforcement action against. Surely, you are not suggesting that where you live the cops do otherwise. Comparison to firefighters has nothing to to with it. Under most circumstances people aren’t trying to hurt them. Finally, ask any soldier if he puts his opponents safety above his own.
But lots of American cops (and cops-lite) behave as if anybody not themselves is a suspect. As soon as they decide to talk to you and it’s not to flirt, you’re a suspect. Any interaction with the public on the part of those cops is “against”. In turn, this leads to things like advice to “never talk to cops” or “how to behave if you’re stopped by a traffic cop in the US” which wouldn’t make sense in other countries. The level of antagonism on both parts is enormous.
I’d wonder whether any other wealthy, developed nations have anything like this?