What we have here is a problem of mind set. You are so firmly entrenched in power policing that you cannot see alternatives.
Such policing works well in the UK as the police and public support it.
It is really worth comparing Police reality shows from the US and UK. Many Brits are appalled at the manner and assumptions of US police.
[QUOTE=Baron Greenback]
If you can remember what your original point with that statement was, I’d like to hear it!
[/QUOTE]
Well, partly it was a joke, but partly it was based on this part of the article:
When I mentioned this, it seemed the response was basically that you guys have no rank, and all police are ‘officers’ (to which I replied that we call all our police ‘officers’ too, but there are still ranks). I’m not sure where the confusion came into all of this, but apparently despite both of you seeming to tell me there were no ranks (that’s what I read anyway), you both acknowledge that there are, in fact, ranks. From what Pjen is saying, all ranks of police officers can be issued guns today, but only about 5% (based on the article are). Obviously things changed from 1936 to when this article was written in 2006, but remain essentially the same today.
Surprised to see Gollum and Faramir turn up in the video. But, hey, lets all LOL at the chavs :rolleyes:
Except for when they don’t. To which you seem to have no answer other than to deny that a situation could ever occur where a criminal wouldn’t agree to it being a fair cop.
It really isn’t.
Not compared to the American approach. Police procedure there is based on force and the expectation of aggression. It is not perfect in the UK but the difference in approach is very obvious. This also goes for other countries based on consent policing.
Correct. In 1936 the average constable was possibly not as educated or skilled as they are today and may mot have been trustworthy with guns.
Hey Pjen.
Ever look out your window in fear that someone was gonna torch your home? Didn’t think so, and I doubt I saw you in Chicago in '68. It appears that Militarisation by rioters is okay in your book.
Bad things happen everywhere, which is why we have numbers and statistics – the question of interest is how often they happen. And the answer of interest is that – where everybody and his dog is armed to the teeth and the police understandably assume that anyone they confront may well be armed and act accordingly, following more or less an unwritten policy of “shoot first and don’t worry about it, we’ll sort it out later and you’ll be fine” – that in such a place police shootings will be enormously higher per capita than in places where those circumstances are different. It’s a complex problem with multiple causes – the prevalence of guns coupled with the militaristic empowerment of police forces to shoot citizens without consequences. And the solution to that problem is also complex and long-term, and is not, in the words of the NRA “only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun”, or, in the words of one poster here, “LOL”. :rolleyes:
There was a case in Canada recently where a police officer shot a young man during a confrontation. As I said, bad things happen everywhere on occasion. In this case, unlike Ferguson, the young man was threatening the officer with a knife, and refused to drop the weapon. But in this case, unlike Ferguson – and this is the part to pay attention to – the officer was charged with murder. Because those things are not supposed to happen, and they are not dismissed when they do.
Nice straw man. We did have riots and burning buildings in London a couple of years ago and consequentltly in other English cities. These riots were settled without gunfire or deployment of the military by using the precepts of policing by consent. This was a riot caused by the police shooting of an unarmed drug dealer and lies at a Coroners Court leading to unrest.
The situation was not made worse by over reaction.
I live in the Dominican Republic and the firs few months here I shivered when ever I went into the banks passing guards with shot guns. BUt they are so casual with them dragging the barrel in the dirt as they walk etc…
I happen to be Canadian and there is no major difference between Canadian and U.S. police that I’ve ever seen (if you’re implying that deaths are taken more seriously in Canada or something). The traffic cops might be nicer in Canada, but one could spend all day talking about Canadian police controversies against student protesters, Natives, etc. I suppose there are fewer big cities in Canada than the U.S., so the police spend more of their time going up against biker gangs and people like that.
Don’t you live in Scotland?
Like I said Pjen, you weren’t there. Regarding gunfire, yeah, there were rioters in Chicago in '68 who unleashed a lot of gun fire. And no Pjen, you weren’t there.
There’s no “or something” – there is the simple fact is that you’re far more likely to be shot by police in the US – to such an extent that in far too many cases it’s just simply no big deal, unless it’s so damn in-your-face that protests force it to become one. And that’s because the presumption is that you’re far more likely to be armed, and this is even aside from the extra risk of being observed committing a crime like Driving While Black. I’m not black, and I have no grudge against police justifiably protecting themselves, but that’s just a fact.
It’s not about how “nice” the police are (though in my experience with Canadian cops they have been unfailingly polite – occasionally, but not often enough, letting me off without a traffic ticket :D). The point is that you’re not going to have a gun pulled on you, or likely asked to get out of the car and then maybe shot because you do something that is perceived as a threat. There were a couple of recent US cases just like that – a young man asked to get out of the car, then asked for his license, then shot because when he went back into the car to get his wallet he was perceived as moving too fast. Or the 80-year old man pulled over who was asked to get out of his car while the cop stood in the background with his gun drawn, and when the old man reached in the back to get his cane, the cop thought the cane was a rifle and shot him.
Look at the stats. It’s not about how “nice” they are, it’s about the risk of getting shot. According to this, law enforcement agencies’ self-reporting suggest about 400 “justifiable homicides” per year which is clearly subject to all kinds of minimizing biases; journalists and academics who study criminal justice suggest it’s upwards of 1000 fatal police shootings every single year. In Canada, there have been a grand total of 83 police shootings since 1932. That’s 83 in 82 years. Now tell me again how you don’t see any difference.
There’s no way there have been only 83 police killings in Canada - the Wikipedia page says up top that the list is incomplete (12 incidents this year but nothing from 1975-1988 or 1932-1967? Come on.) Canada also has 10x fewer people than the U.S.
I don’t deny that Canadian culture is very different than the U.S. in many ways and offers different challenges to police, but I would be very skeptical that an average NYPD officer is somehow more Neanderthal than an average RCMP officer. As I said, you can spend all day reading about Canadian police controversies. (mostly involving Native Indians)
very interesting!! thank you for posting the link and for starting this thread
I suspect that the main reason is that handguns are far rarer in Canada.
Truth be told, the vast majority of killings in the US are committed by handguns.
None of that is meant to suggest we don’t need serious reforms.
Beyond that confining discussions of police misconduct to the use of guns is moronic. American Police in the pre-Miranda days were vastly worse than now despite the fact that they were far less well-armed and shot fewer people.
Similarly, French police don’t shoot people at the same rates and one would have to be foolish to deny that the French police aren’t famous for their brutality towards Muslims and others they view as “immigrants.”
Pjen, you seem to imply that the militarization of policing here is causal of an escalation of violence and use of firearms by criminals. I’d argue that it was initially a reaction to the situation as it already existed. It may have contributed some to continued escalation after that point.
Equipping US law enforcement was a response to the “war on drugs.” Organized criminals we were expecting the police to deal with were already better armed and equipped. The escalation for organized crime wasn’t simply a matter of maintaining an advantage against the police. The also were competing with other organized criminal groups. Key groups in the drug trade are affiliated with competing cartels in Mexico. As extralegal businesses disputes they can’t talk out get settled with violence instead of court cases. That drug trade broke some of the norms for more traditional US organized crime that had more interest in stability than frequent large scale violent disputes, like the Mafia. The wash of drug money led to breaking down some of the traditional relationships and made violence more lucrative. That violence, and the social expectation of police doing something about it, led to fights where police were outnumbered AND outgunned. The current German police equipment (to include MP5s) would have been more effective (and is still more effective than what Wilson was equipped with.) Police tried to catch up.
If I was to wave a wand right now and make every non military weapon in the US disappear (along with blanket laws that prevented the police from rearming) the organized crime groups would be the first to rearm. The are already affiliated with people who smuggle huge volumes across a porous border. Getting well armed first would give them considerable power to push out rival drug organizations netting them massive quantities of profits. These are the people who’s culture you recommend we change last. It’s also a culture change that would be one of the toughest to sell; it’s a change that clearly would be against their organization best interests. While drugs are illegal and the profits are so high we either rearm police, defacto ignore both the drug trade and any other laws they choose to violate, or start counting LEOs death in the hundreds (with associated huge financial costs).
Well I suppose we could use the military like the UK did in Northern Ireland when the drug trade produces a defacto insurrection that carves off territory from the rule of law. Doing that could be a difficult culture change. We have a long and deep tradition of not empowering Federal troops domestically… inspired by some guys in Red Coats that “mildly” annoyed us. Replacing militarized police with actual military doesn’t seem like more than playing a shell game on who’s pulling the trigger though.
Our organized crime threat is really different than yours. The area across our long porous border is basically controlled by violent mini-states. Much of Northern Mexico is more violent than Iraq at any time after the fall of the Baathists and before ISIS. Your culture change didn’t happen in the same environment.
It makes at least as much sense as the OP.
Likewise, the use of a gun in committing a felony can add years to a prison sentence, in many if not most American jurisdictions, or at least where most of the people are.