LOL. Well let me pass the memo out to my 300 million fellow Americans, we’ll get right on this. I’m sure everyone will be on board.
This is all very enlightening.
Sarcasm does not take anything from the argument that having so many citizens killed by the police IS a political choice.
Facebook currently has a page being shared:
Killed by police
USA 409
UK 0
Germany 3
France 0
Japan 0
Pointing out the problem is easy. When you have a viable solution get back to me. And leave your sanctimonious bull shit behind.
I like the United States and have a warm affection for Americans. The “gun” problem has I think, deeper underlying roots. I know Americans who abhor personal weapons but we never hear from that cohort.
There is something going on underneath the national psyche which is embedded in the culture.
The Swiss are heavily armed but they don’t shoot one another. Ditto for Israelis. Scandinavia has firearms but shooting the neighbour is rare.
Quite why Americans feel able to shoot is a puzzle.
In NZ our police are unarmed and deaths of officers and criminals amount to less than one a year. It’s a national scandal when the police shoot someone the court cases, official enquiries and anguish go on for years. That is for one death.
By this, I meant I don’t expect many people to be killed by police fire, if thepolice do not have guns. Apologies for it not being more clear, initially.
It is not sanctimonious to point out reality.
The reality is that the elephant in the room is the political choice that the USA has made to allow its police officers to kill civilians. Other countries have taken a different set of choices. Each country is responsible for its choices.
Agreed.
I wonder why this is, in all seriousness. My initial guess is that in the US, maybe it’s because (is it so?) the difference between the haves and the have nots is much greater than it is in Sweden or Israel or New Zealand?
Police with firearms are regularly dispatched to deal with people carrying guns or with people causing serious threats for other reasons.
Rarely do they open fire, even more rarely do they kill people.
This is because of their training and culture- use guns only as a last resort.
I think it is much more to do with individuality versus communalism.
The idea of having the right to ‘protect’ oneself, ones property, ones family and ones honour overrules the sentiment that police or others should be responsible for this.
The US foundation myth and the consequent frontiersman image is hard to throw off.
[ul]
[li]American deaths in the entirety of WW1: circa 100,000[/li][li]British and Commonwealth deaths at the Battle of the Somme: circa 95,000[/li][/ul]
It’s hard to overstate how much of a bit player America was in WW1.
I find it interesting that you put it that way, “the police are allowed to kill civilians.” Quite loaded, that statement. For countries where their police are armed, then, shouldn’t you put it the same way?
I wouldn’t put it that way. I’d put it, “The police are allowed to use deadly force when their safety, or the safety of others, is sufficiently and reasonably threatened.” IANAL, and I’m paraphrasing.
In fact, if my safety is threatened sufficiently and reasonably, then I’m allowed to defend myself up to and including the possible use of deadly force.
If I’m threatened, I want to stop the threat. If you were threatened, you’d want to be able to stop the threat, too, right? And no I don’t necessarily mean you’d have a gun and be able to use it. You would simply want to be able to stop the threat.
Not sure I get your point.
My point is that without the USA, by the end of WWII Great Britain would be German territory. I’m not saying the British didn’t fight for their cause. They certainly did.
Okay I hear you, but if the police are 7 minutes away while a criminal is pointing a gun at the head of your daughter, then the police might as well be on the moon. 7 minutes is an eternity in that case.
And I think that’s a good thing.
The bar is different in different jurisdictions.
For example, if a British police officer emptied twelve bullets into an unarmed suspect they would not only have been suspended and sacked, but prosecuted for murder or manslaughter.
Consequently British police never do this, opening fire only on orders from a senior officer.
The fact that comparable democracies never approach the record of US police indicates that it is a problem of policy and social control - police are allowed to act like this even though it is not found to be necessary in other jurisdictions.
I didn’t mention WW2. I gave you statistics about WW1, you know, the war where German civilians were dropping dead in the street en masse from starvation and the country was on the verge of revolution due to the effects of a crippling Royal Navy blockade, and Germany had already approached France and Britain with a peace offer a year before America entered the war due to being pummelled by the French at Verdun?
Let us be frank. Before Pearl Harbor the US electorate was not interested in the war and many politicians leant towards supporting Germany. Only when US territory was attacked could Roosevelt move from covert financial support to war because Germany as Japan’s ally, declared war.
US finance and troops were effective in saving Europe, but Hitler gave up on invading the UK as a step too far in 1940.
Without US intervention, most of continental Europe would have been controlled by the Nazis, but the UK and Ireland would probably have remained semi- independent.
We have much more to thank the Russians for in maintaining an Eastern front that made westward advance across the Channel impossible.
We seem to cope in Europe. Maybe our criminals are just less dangerous.
The difference in police killings is so massive, it cannot be ignored.
Yeah okay, let’s not turn this into a WWII debate (even though I broached the subject).
As for the difference in police killings, yes it’s way too large but what’s the solution?