The OP raises some valid points. I think the first step in solving the problem is admitting that we have one. Our police are far too trigger happy. They bask in the same glow of uniform worship that soldiers enjoy and a significant segment of the public will cheer every shooting. The legal system has essentially told black youth that their lives don’t matter, so any cop with racist tendencies doesn’t hesitate to pull that trigger, and pull it again and again. We’ve made it so that the cop is encouraged to shoot to kill the minute that he fears getting a bruise. This won’t change until all Americans live in fear of being murdered by the police, not just one ethnic group.
Uh, sure, and when U.S.-based NHL teams need good players, they get most of them from Canada.
That is about as relevant to the issue of policing as American involvement in World War One.
Valid excuse? Wrong question.
You are correct that the only way to change the situation is to change the culture, but I have no idea how to change the culture, which is rooted in history.
Most of the comparisons in this thread have been between the U.S. and European countries with a couple of nods to the Antipodes. However, there are significant differences in the development of those locations. Europe has a very long tradition in which large numbers of the populace were simply never armed with personal weapons and anything resembling a frontier society with minimal civil law enforcement is several hundred years in the past. In the U.S., the “frontier” society is barely 100 years in the past (with the horrible, gang promoting, prohibition experiment even more recent).
Australia, New Zealand, and Canada had frontier periods, but their populations never generated the large number of large,densely populated cities that arose in the U.S.
The culture that arose in the U.S. was never “chosen” so much as it evolved without direction.
Interesting, and omitted from these discussions are places like Brazil where deaths by police action are, if I recall correctly, around 1,800 people a year.
Cultures can change. The attitudes toward driving drunk and support for enforcement of laws punishing such behavior underwent a radical change in the U.S. between 1975 and 1985. However, there was not really any force supporting opposition to that change. Leaving aside the formal opposition of the NRA, the acceptance of the possession and use of handguns permeates society even among the majority of people who do not own one and the opposition from those who do own them would be enormous. I have no idea what it would take to actually change the culture.
I do know that simply changing police procedures and training would not change the culture. I would support changes to and improvements of police traing and rules of engagement. It would probably save some lives, such as those of the idiot unarmed couple in Cleveland who fled police until trapped in a dead-end parking lot who were then riddled with over a hundred rounds of bullets by irate and poorly trained idiot police. However, such training would not have “saved” the idiot in a nearby community who got out of his car at a routine traffic stop, pulled out a gun, and began firing at the police. Until the criminals and idiots have already chosen to stop using weapons, police training is going to have minimal impact on a culture that supports arming both police and civilians.
The problem with this “argument” is that it is rooted in a movie fantasy as well as being separated from reality.
Such a scenario is a staple of fiction, particularly in movies; can you tell me how often it occurred in the U.S. in the last ten years? Hundred years?
Beyond that, the culture of Europe is such that the criminals tend to not use guns. This skews all the discussions comparing other places with the U.S.
Change is difficult but possible. There are many examples of how a society can be run without having a police killing culture. The outcome is consequent on many factors discussed above. These are financial (to do with distribution of wealth), social (to do with how different groups get along) and cultural (to do with what people think is morally right.
Education and political action to address these issues is possible, but the change will be slow.
Meanwhile like all political systems you are stuck with the result of previous political, social and cultural events.
Good luck!
I wish I had said that!
That is not the case. France, Germany, Malta, Switzerland, Austria, the Soviet republics, Spain, Portugal all had hunting and defensive gun cultures and widespread use of guns. None save the ex soviets have a current problem with gun misuse by civilians or bythe police.
Criminals do not generally need nor use guns here BECAUSE the police are not routinely armed and because gun usage or possession results in long sentences.
I suspect if the enquies into police gun usage after an incident by outside, sceptical and respected authorities (coroners Courts, Independent police Complaints Commission and the Courts) were as comprehensive and challenging as is the case in the UK, then the police would most probably clean up their act considerably and (like the UK police) think very carefully about opening fire.
In the current case, the firing of multiple bullets at an unarmed perpetrator would have resulted in the officer being sacked and probably charged with murder or manslaughter.
Piers Morgan’s take:
Darren Wilson’s explanation for why he killed Michael Brown was eerily reminiscent of George Zimmerman’s account of why he shot and killed another unarmed teenager, Trayvon Martin.
Like Wilson, Zimmerman claimed he was being savagely beaten, and that his assailant was trying to grab his gun.
And in both cases, under Florida and Missouri state law - with which they were very familiar - that assertion was enough to justify them shooting dead a young black teen.
I don’t believe Darren Wilson’s version of events, just as I didn’t believe George Zimmerman’s.
I think they’re a pair of trigger-happy wannabee John Waynes who felt empowered by their guns to mete out deadly justice to a couple of black teenagers who should never have been killed.
They did so knowing the law would shield them, not their victims.
It’s not so much ‘the system’ that failed Michael Brown, or Trayvon Martin.
As civil rights campaigner W.E.B. Du Bois once said: ‘A system cannot fail those it was never built to protect.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2849133/PIERS-MORGAN-farce-Ferguson-Darren-Wilson-6ft-4in-210lb-five-year-old-history.html#ixzz3KBNsNDpd
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
It’s true that you won’t get snuffed out by police in the much more civilized U.K. - you’ll only get beaten or knifed by your countrymen
It isn’t easy, probably the best starting point would be the removal of the vast majority of guns from the people.
Bring in strict rules governing gun ownership and sweep millions of handguns off the streets. Make it difficult to sell, own and operate a gun, make the need for a criminal to own a gun less pressing (why use a gun when you can accomplish your crime through a knife or blunt instrument?).
Less guns around = less armed criminals. I’m assuming the criminals in Europe are just as lawless as the USA (that sort of comes with the job description) and so have no real reason to obey the gun restrictions we do have…and yet they just don’t bother to acquire or use one. Why is that?
As it says in the article:
“I would question the compatibility of figures and the methods used in this particular survey because it must be near impossible to compare assault figures from one country to the next based on phone calls.”
How about some reliable statistics based on something other than an opinion poll.
I live in Scotland and there are few places I would worry about being in public in the dark.
If it’s good enough for the U.N., it’s good enough for me - I see you had no problem quoting “facts” from an anonymous Facebook post upthread.
http://news.sky.com/story/372608/scotland-most-violent-in-developed-world
From Wikipedia:
United Kingdom
"Includes all violence against the person, sexual offences, and robbery as violent crime.[12] Today violent crimes are considered the most heinous whereas historically, according to Simon DeDeo, crimes against property were equally important.[13]
Rates of violent crime in the UK are recorded by the British Crime Survey. For the 2010/2011 report on crime in England and Wales,[14] the statistics show that violent crime continues a general downward trend observed over the last few decades as shown in the graph. “The 2010/11 BCS showed overall violence was down 47 per cent on the level seen at its peak in 1995; representing nearly two million fewer violent offences per year.” In 2010/11, 31 people per 1000 interviewed reported being a victim of violent crime in the 12 preceding months.
Regarding murder, “increasing levels of homicide (at around 2% to 3% per year) [have been observed] from the 1960s through to the end of the twentieth century”. Recently the murder rate has declined, “a fall of 19 per cent in homicides since 2001/02”, as measured by The Homicide Index.
United States
There are two main crime databases maintained by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ): the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Report (UCR). Non-fatal violence is reported in the NCVS, which measures rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault reported by households surveyed by the U.S. Census Bureau.[16] The UCR tracks similar non-fatal violence, plus murder and non-negligent manslaughter recorded by law enforcement.[17]
There are significant methodological and definitional differences between the NCVS and UCR:
The NCVS includes estimates of both reported and unreported crimes, while the UCR collects data on crimes recorded by the police.
The UCR includes homicide, arson, and commercial crimes, while the NCVS does not.
The UCR excludes simple assault (attacks or attempted attacks without a weapon resulting in either no injury or minor injury) and sexual assault, which are in the NCVS.
The NCVS data are estimates from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households, but the UCR data are based on the actual counts of offenses reported by law enforcement.
The NCVS excludes crimes against children under 12 years, persons in institutions, and, possibly, highly mobile populations and the homeless; however, victimizations against these persons may be included in the UCR.
UK 31/1000
USA NCVS 27/1000
USA UCR 38/1000
Facts from a Facebook page that can be readily checked against the statistics and which are in fact correct!
It’s pretty rich for someone to say that the U.S. should simply “change its culture” in order to eliminate gun violence, when England hasn’t been able to simply change its culture to eliminate the much more manageable problem of football hooliganism.
A telephone poll!
See UK Crime Survey, and US figures with some substance above.
“Football hooliganism” in the UK and abroad has been quashed almost completely because of a change of culture and law. It is no longer a major problem. Change is possible.
There is so little “football hooliganism” now that the few incidents are listed individually in Facebook:
There were minor disturbances during and after England’s 4–1 defeat to Germany during the 2010 FIFA World Cup. A German flag was burned by English supporters in Leicester Square in London, and a nearby restaurant was damaged. A German fan was confronted by the mob, but there were no injuries.[43]
On 1 December 2010, supporters of rival West Midlands clubs Aston Villa and Birmingham City clashed at St Andrew’s stadium after a Football League Cup match, and 14 people were injured. Missiles were hurled on to the pitch, a rocket flare was released in the stands, and there were scuffles in nearby streets.[44] By this stage, football hooliganism was rising dramatically, with 103 incidents of hooliganism involving under-19’s in the 2009–10 season compared to 38 the season before. Cass Pennant, a former football hooligan, said that the rise in football hooliganism was the result of rising unemployment, poverty, and social discontent in the aftermath of the recent recession – a situation similar to that in Britain for much of the 1970s and 1980s when hooliganism was at its peak.[45]
Use of bovver boots in football hooliganism was countered in 2012 by warnings to fans that they would have to remove such boots in order to attend football matches.[46]
In a match between Sheffield Wednesday and Leeds United on 19 October 2012, a Leeds United fan attacked Sheffield Wednesday goalkeeper Chris Kirkland during a pitch invasion to celebrate a goal.[47] The hooligan was identified on social media sites as someone who had previously been banned from every football ground in the UK.[48]
At a FA Cup semi-final match between Millwall and Wigan Athletic at the new Wembley Stadium on 13 April 2013, Millwall fans fought amongst themselves, and 14 arrests were made.[49] The next day, Newcastle United fans rioted when their team lost 3–0 to Sunderland in their Premier League match. Bottles were thrown, bins were set on fire and a horse was punched as mounted officers tried to move crowds back to allow visiting fans to be escorted away. Twenty-nine arrests were made during the game itself.[50]
In his autobiography ‘Undesirables’, Colin Blaney, a high-ranking member of Manchester United’s Inter City Jibbers firm, claimed that one of the main developments of the 2010s was that football hooligans were no longer involved in acquisitive crimes overseas. Whereas they had once stolen designer clothing from abroad and used international games as an excuse to loot jewelry shops on the continent, the football firms of today solely engage in profit-oriented forms of crime within the UK.
Compare that with the wikipedia entry for the USA and Canada:
United States and Canada[edit]
While soccer is traditionally viewed as a family-friendly event, violence does occur. On July 20, 2008, in a friendly match between Major League Soccer side Columbus Crew and English Premier League club West Ham United, in Columbus, Ohio, a fight broke out between rival fans. Police estimated more than 100 people were involved.[132] An unruly encounter occurred between Toronto FC fans in 2009, upset from a loss in the Trillium Cup, and Columbus Crew fans. One Toronto fan was tasered by Columbus police.
That same weekend, a riot was narrowly avoided at a packed Giants Stadium as members of the New York Red Bulls supporters club, Empire Supporters Club (ESC), and members of the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority security force clashed over what the ESC claimed was unfair and repeated mistreatment. Clashes also took place in the parking area around the stadium after the game, involving already ejected-for-life North Jersey Firm (NJF) members, and the New Jersey State Police were called to quell the situation.[133] There were several arrests, mostly of known NJF hooligans. A rare moment of violence broke out in Seattle in March 2010 after a pre-season Portland Timbers win in Seattle, when three Sounders fans assaulted a Timbers fan, choking and dragging him with his team scarf.[134] On April 21, 2013 in Portland, a Portland Timbers supporter was assaulted by a group of San Jose Earthquakes supporters. While he was sitting in his car, he had taunted his scarf at a group of San Jose Supporters, one of which ran toward him and attacked him through his car window, breaking his car windshield and assaulting him.[135] San Jose’s 1906 Ultras were subsequently banned by the club from traveling to away matches.[136] After much debate, the ban was lifted.