Britain - The Official Thread

[Obelisk]

Chief airbag tester for Takata. They go off about one in 1,000 times, right?

 

[AbeFroman75]

Unarmed unfortunately doesn't mean much in the States. Many people regularly walk around armed, including solid, law abiding citizens.

Yes, they do because they have the right of self-preservation, you don't like it? Don't come here. Nobody is forcing you guys to adopt our freedoms, so don't down talk ours because you are forced to rely on the government to protect you.
[/QUOTE]

It's hard to tell how many police killings are lawful or unlawful because so many go unprosecuted.

Prosecuted or investigated? Do you want justice or vengence. In some cases an investigation is enough, others warrant prosecution. Certain groups here simply want vengence.

It is dangerous. It's also dangerous to be a young black man interacting with police, just like it's dangerous to be a young woman walking alone at night.




Hold your horses, fella. I am not doing any of what you claim.

You are 10000000% doing just that. Stop promoting the same bull that has been shown to you to be bs but you refuse to see it because "OMG America is evil and racist!!" Or whatever it is you may have against the US.

I haven't and don't perpetuate falsehoods, at least not intentionally.

You are, I just informed you and showed you. I hope you stop doing it.

I haven't said anything before this post about the claims you linked to or BLM, so please don't assume that you know my position on either one. You may ask if you like, but it's obviously not what you think it is.

That is exactly what you did, you claimed that "I don't know the facts" and that me being a member of the white race does not grant me the ability to know such things. Get off it dude.

It's unfortunate that a lot of police and unions have pushed back against body cams.

Most of the major departments NYPD, Chicago PD, LAPD, etc. are using them or are in the process of completely equipping the officers with them.

But clearly in some areas that isn't the case and the public knows it, hence the push back.

Even when the public can see the shootout and even if they realize that the officer had tenths of a second to make a decision some fall back to stupid claims like "Why didn't they shoot him in the leg." I will say this because you seem like a good natured guy, don't ever use that, not saying you have.. It's absolutely silly and inhumane. You never shoot to maim, you shoot to kill. If you have to shoot somebody to make them no longer a threat, you give them the quickest death possible. Sounds morbid but it's more humane than having someone suffer.

But I come from Australia, where we have at best a handful of police shootings a year, including the lawful ones.

Ok, just stop with the "But in Australia......" Australia is different than the US, it is different than the UK, Germany, France, Lavtia, Lithuania, Cook Islands, and Argentina. We are not the same people or culture, system of government, racial and ethnic make up, economic status, etc.

Just a tip and only for a second, comparing two countries and their crime rates is very rarely an apples to apples affair. Simply because some countries define certain crimes differently, even violent crimes like rape.

Here's a fun little one that I found. *Disclaimer: How accurate is it to direct apples to apples, I'm not sure, it came on google and I don't have the time or the desire to really run through it with a fine tooth comb. But I'm not going to get on my high horse and lecture you guys on your rape, assault, burglary, property crime, etc. being dangerously (or whatever other language one can use to make the problem sound much worse than it actually is) out of control. Having never been to Australia myself, I imagine it's quite nice and safe....but it's no Singapore.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime

.And this is why it's a bit of a Catch 22 when it comes to what you say in the first paragraph, about telling people that the police aren't dangerous. As long as each side thinks the other is dangerous, they'll both be much quicker to use violence to defend themselves. Lose:lose.

Now you're starting to see it. Factually, statistically, the cops are not out to kill you and the fear is simply irrational and often perpetuated by those looking to either intentionally deceive or simply don't know. Some are out to give you a bad day, and we call those motorcycle cops.

That's not valid, for reasons I explained above. The active population in contact with the police is much smaller than that, and the actual "at risk" population smaller still.

It very much so is, but you don't like it because it nullifies your argument that blacks are in danger from the police.

You're creating a strawman here. Don't take it just because I used a source with "crisis" in the web address that I think it's a crisis. I don't control the names people choose for their websites, and data is data. Chill with the logical fallacies, please.

I used the word "crisis" because that is a common term thrown around regarding this in certain circles. It had nothing to do with your link. It would have been used either way. Although you've been using verbiage to make the problem sound worse than it actually is. 6 of one half a dozen of another.

However, if I take your math I'd say a thousand deaths in a million police contacts is absolutely a cause for concern. You're OK with a one in a thousand chance of ending up in a pine box when a cop pulls you over? That seems like a lot. 1 in 20,000 even if you're unarmed? Ouch. That's not really sustainable on a national scale. I guarantee you anyone with kids is not going to want to expose the kids or themselves to that level of risk. Especially not from a service that you call on in emergencies.

When 88% of those cases involve someone drawing a weapon a cop, that is not cause for concern on police behavior. If somebody is coming at you with a knife, bat, candelabra, crowbar, or a gun, with the intent to cause your or others harm. You kill them. Your life is more important and valuable than theirs. If that is in anyway objectionable to you than the chasm is simply too great and we will simply agree to disagree.

As for the other part, it's a very very very simple way of not being involved (it already is basically 0% ). A.) Don't commit crimes, B.) If A fails, then comply. Always let your lawyer do the resisting for you. You can't talk or fight your way out of being arrested. There are rare cases where that doesn't always work but they are the extreme outliers. If you think it's that deadly and dangerous, don't come here.

 

[Imari]

Yes, they do because they have the right of self-preservation, you don't like it? Don't come here. Nobody is forcing you guys to adopt our freedoms, so don't down talk ours because you are forced to rely on the government to protect you.

Dude, you're getting triggered about something I haven't said. You were using "unarmed" as though they were by default innocent. I pointed out the fallacy of assuming guilt or innocence based on possession of weapons where it's legal and commonplace to do so.

Anything you read into that is in your own head.

Prosecuted or investigated? Do you want justice or vengence. In some cases an investigation is enough, others warrant prosecution. Certain groups here simply want vengence.

Either. Investigations by an independent body would suffice to prove if a prosecution wasn't warranted. My understanding is that often these things are investigated by the officer's peers, which isn't particularly good practice.

You are 10000000% doing just that. Stop promoting the same bull that has been shown to you to be bs but you refuse to see it because "OMG America is evil and racist!!" Or whatever it is you may have against the US.

You need to stop putting words in my mouth. Right now.

You are, I just informed you and showed you. I hope you stop doing it.

No, you claimed that I agreed with other people who were lying. I do not. Somehow you don't understand that.

That is exactly what you did, you claimed that "I don't know the facts" and that me being a member of the white race does not grant me the ability to know such things. Get off it dude.

I was not replying to those links or referencing BLM. You said that no one in the US should fear interaction with a police officer unless they have committed a crime. That's obviously false, and the primary example is young black men. More so in certain areas than others, but it's very much a thing.

I didn't claim that you didn't know these because you're white. I claim that you've managed to avoid learning about these things because you're white. If you were a young black man in the wrong area of the wrong city, you would not be able to avoid learning about how police will profile you.

Even when the public can see the shootout and even if they realize that the officer had tenths of a second to make a decision some fall back to stupid claims like "Why didn't they shoot him in the leg." I will say this because you seem like a good natured guy, don't ever use that, not saying you have.. It's absolutely silly and inhumane. You never shoot to maim, you shoot to kill. If you have to shoot somebody to make them no longer a threat, you give them the quickest death possible. Sounds morbid but it's more humane than having someone suffer.

I'm well aware. In fact, I'm critical of the fact that police tend to draw their weapons when they don't necessarily intend to kill. I subscribe to the military mindset where if you point a gun at a person you best be ready to kill them.

You seem to keep assuming that I subscribe to all the views that you associate with a group that I'm very much not a part of.

Ok, just stop with the "But in Australia......" Australia is different than the US, it is different than the UK, Germany, France, Lavtia, Lithuania, Cook Islands, and Argentina. We are not the same people or culture, system of government, racial and ethnic make up, economic status, etc.

Settle down. I've only just mentioned it now so that you can try and get some understanding of where my perspective comes from. I'm not going to apologise for my place of birth.

I'm well aware that the Australian solution wouldn't work in the US, both because it would be logistically impossible and because the populace doesn't have the will to do so.

Now you're starting to see it. Factually, statistically, the cops are not out to kill you and the fear is simply irrational and often perpetuated by those looking to either intentionally deceive or simply don't know. Some are out to give you a bad day, and we call those motorcycle cops.

Stop it with the strawmen. Nobody said the cops are out to kill people.

Your statistics, which I looked at, show a 1 in 1000 chance of being killed by a policeman. That's not an irrational fear, that's very reasonable. Likewise, the police have a very reasonable fear that an armed populace with a low tolerance for authority will snap on them.

As I see it, both sides are unnecessarily antagonistic to the other.

It very much so is, but you don't like it because it nullifies your argument that blacks are in danger from the police.

Well, they weren't in danger from the under-5s and such anyway. They're not part of the population that the 20 black deaths came from (as toddlers aren't stopped by police, they're essentially above the law). As such, you're taking the result from one set of statistics (unarmed shootings) and the population from another (the US of A).

To do it correctly, the 20 black unarmed deaths would be associated with the number of black stops, and then that compared to the unarmed deaths per stop from other races.

I used the word "crisis" because that is a common term thrown around regarding this in certain circles. It had nothing to do with your link. It would have been used either way. Although you've been using verbiage to make the problem sound worse than it actually is. 6 of one half a dozen of another.

For at least the third time, stop putting words in my mouth.

By all means, please quote me the sections where I've been using language to make it sound worse than it is. I'll be happy to amend them if you'll do the same to your posts.

When 88% of those cases involve someone drawing a weapon a cop, that is not cause for concern on police behavior. If somebody is coming at you with a knife, bat, candelabra, crowbar, or a gun, with the intent to cause your or others harm. You kill them. Your life is more important and valuable than theirs. If that is in anyway objectionable to you than the chasm is simply too great and we will simply agree to disagree.

Someone coming at you with a gun? Absolutely. Someone coming at you with a candelabra? Debatable. Someone coming at you bare-handed? Very debatable. Someone not really coming at you at all? Probably not.

To my mind, to use lethal force there has to be a reasonable belief that you're under threat of imminent death or severe bodily harm. Depending on the situation, that can absolutely be the case if an unarmed guy is coming at you. If you're there, alone, without backup and he's twice your size then yeah, that's reasonable. If there's three of you and the guy hitches his pants up while he's crawling on the floor at your instruction, not so much.

What's your connection to the police? Is it yourself, family, something else? You clearly feel very strongly about not giving the police a hard time.

As above, I'm more of the military mindset which means that i do not view my life as more important and valuable than that of the populace I'm trying to protect. I guess that's a difference between military and police.

As for the other part, it's a very very very simple way of not being involved (it already is basically 0% ). A.) Don't commit crimes, B.) If A fails, then comply. Always let your lawyer do the resisting for you. You can't talk or fight your way out of being arrested. There are rare cases where that doesn't always work but they are the extreme outliers. If you think it's that deadly and dangerous, don't come here.

It's not a particularly strong argument when it sums up to:



I will continue to feel free to have an opinion and discuss it without being fobbed off by fallacies like "if you think it's dangerous, don't come here". That has nothing to do with the discussion.

Yes, obviously people should not commit crimes. Yes, obviously they should just comply with the police. But sometimes that doesn't work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_William_Chapman

Yes, these instances of unprovoked murder in the face of compliance are rare, but it doesn't actually take that many to destroy the credibility of a police force. It's basically the exact opposite of what police should do, and so it's very damaging.

Ultimately, people want to feel safe, and that's separate from whether they're actually safe. If people don't feel like they can trust the police, that's a problem all of it's own as that makes good policing that much harder. Add on that even a couple of these unlawful murders start to cast doubt over the rest of the shootings and you lose public trust.

How do you feel about greater transparency around investigations and punishments (if appropriate) for police officers? I feel like in this age of social media it would go a long way for police departments to build trust with their community if they publically demonstrated how they hold themselves accountable for their actions.

 

[AbeFroman75]

Either. Investigations by an independent body would suffice to prove if a prosecution wasn't warranted. My understanding is that often these things are investigated by the officer's peers, which isn't particularly good practice.

There's usually an Internal Affairs within a department that handles these sorts of things. For some departments they're out to get cops for any reason possible for others they're corrupt. It depends.

I was not replying to those links or referencing BLM. You said that no one in the US should fear interaction with a police officer unless they have committed a crime. That's obviously false, and the primary example is young black men. More so in certain areas than others, but it's very much a thing.

I didn't claim that you didn't know these because you're white. I claim that you've managed to avoid learning about these things because you're white. If you were a young black man in the wrong area of the wrong city, you would not be able to avoid learning about how police will profile you.

I'm saying it is an irrational fear.

Your claim that because of my skin color couldn't be more wrong. When I was 19 my buddy and I were driving through Marina Del Rey (a very expensive part of LA) in a beat up truck. We were pulled over, detained, vehicle searched, and questioned because as the cop said "You don't look like the kind of people that belong in the neighborhood." We were polite, told him I was visiting my dad that lived in the area, gave him the address and he let us go. We weren't combative and were complying with everything despite being "profiled". In college, campus police pulled their guns on me because I was suspiciously looking like I was trying to break into a car (it was mine, and I locked the keys inside). Nothing happened, I was compliant as all hell because I didn't want to get shot. Turns out there had been a string of break ins and they were on the look out for someone that was possibly armed.

Stop making this about something exclusive only to blacks. I say that because of this: "I claim that you've managed to avoid learning about these things because you're white" Your words not mine. If I misunderstood you, I would be all for clarification.

I'm well aware. In fact, I'm critical of the fact that police tend to draw their weapons when they don't necessarily intend to kill. I subscribe to the military mindset where if you point a gun at a person you best be ready to kill them.

I understand you're not familiar with police tactics in the US but they draw their weapons to make sure they have the fastest possible response time should the need arise. To have a weapon (weapon means gun for the uninitiated) at the ready vs. having to draw, point, aim is much more advantageous. Also they can't just walk around drawing their weapon for every little thing. They can actually get into serious crap if they do. As an unrelated example. If a cop walks up to question you, they don't have their weapon drawn. If you get pulled over for speeding they won't point a gun in your face. If you take them on a chase instead of pulling over, they will have their weapons drawn and issue you commands.

You seem to keep assuming that I subscribe to all the views that you associate with a group that I'm very much not a part of.

when you say things like this "I claim that you've managed to avoid learning about these things because you're white. If you were a young black man in the wrong area of the wrong city, you would not be able to avoid learning about how police will profile you." It's pretty easy to. That is pretty much exactly the reasoning they use "You haven't experienced it because you're white." Like I carry around the Gold Rewards Whitey Card that I show police and they grant me three wishes.

I'm well aware that the Australian solution wouldn't work in the US, both because it would be logistically impossible and because the populace doesn't have the will to do so.

"Doesn't have the will to do so" ?! WTF, you want to explain that one a little further?

Stop it with the strawmen. Nobody said the cops are out to kill people.

Have you heard Al Sharpton or The Root?

Your statistics, which I looked at, show a 1 in 1000 chance of being killed by a policeman. That's not an irrational fear, that's very reasonable. Likewise, the police have a very reasonable fear that an armed populace with a low tolerance for authority will snap on them.

As I see it, both sides are unnecessarily antagonistic to the other.

1 in 1000...if you are armed and trying to kill the cop. If you aren't pointing a gun or a knife or attacking a cop, it is a 100% irrational fear. But once again, that fear is pumped into (mostly) young black men that cops are out to get them and they have to fear the police. If you don't understand that by now I'm sorry but there is nothing more to tell you.

For at least the third time, stop putting words in my mouth.

By all means, please quote me the sections where I've been using language to make it sound worse than it is. I'll be happy to amend them if you'll do the same to your posts.

You're entire first and second post. And all the times you've referenced that black men, specifically, have to fear the police. Whites are fine because they've never had to experience being profiled.

Someone coming at you with a gun? Absolutely. Someone coming at you with a candelabra? Debatable. Someone coming at you bare-handed? Very debatable. Someone not really coming at you at all? Probably not.

A candelabra will quite easily split your head open. If you're wondering why I chose candelabra, I remembered a story a few years back where some guy killed his wife with one and split her head open like a melon. Then when he charged the cops they lit him up

What's your connection to the police? Is it yourself, family, something else? You clearly feel very strongly about not giving the police a hard time.

The majority of my non-work, non-college met friends are cops and firefighters. See, I think you've got things incorrect though, if the cops do screw up I have no problem pointing that out. But when the vast majority of the time you see that the perp did everything wrong as in, resist, had a weapon of some type and didn't comply, fight the cops, reach for their gun, etc. and the cops get all the blame because "they're all racist" (not saying you said that, it's just a very common thing said among certain people). And it's the "Oh, my baby he was on his way to college and he was going to be a astronaut"....forgetting that the guy was a pos gang banger or junkie attacking the cops...but he did nothing wrong. Of course the parents were never around when he was alive or maybe he wouldn't have put himself into a position to get shot by the police. But why admit fault when you can get paid!!

As above, I'm more of the military mindset which means that i do not view my life as more important and valuable than that of the populace I'm trying to protect. I guess that's a difference between military and police.

Now you know 100% that is not true. You make a choice, one has to die. You or some scumbag that's just killed someone and is now coming at you with a knife or a gun. It's not about wanting to kill them, it's about having to. It's you or him you don't want to kill him but you have to save your life or others. By nature, value your life above others. Certain people are able to put value into helping others over their own life but that's an entirely different aspect.

I will continue to feel free to have an opinion and discuss it without being fobbed off by fallacies like "if you think it's dangerous, don't come here".

No that was serious. If you don't feel safe here, don't come here. That would suck to go to a place where you feel like you're in constant danger. If you do or don't that's none of my business and i"m not implying anything.

Yes, obviously people should not commit crimes. Yes, obviously they should just comply with the police. But sometimes that doesn't work.


Yes, these instances of unprovoked murder in the face of compliance are rare, but it doesn't actually take that many to destroy the credibility of a police force. It's basically the exact opposite of what police should do, and so it's very damaging.

Oh, absolutely, I'll do you one better. The case of Daniel Shaver. By far and away the worst shooting of an unarmed person I have ever seen. I don't know the rules regarding posting content that involves someone being killed (there is no blood or gore) But it is despicable. Here put this in your youtube search bar (Body-Cam Video Of Daniel Shaver Shooting | Los Angeles Times)
The cop that shot him, was acquitted of 2nd degree murder. I asked cop friends about the video to see if maybe it was something I missed (I've never been in that situation so it's best to keep an open mind) and none of them could justify the shooting. To top it off, this did not make the 24/7 coverage with the CNN Brady Bunch panel of "experts". It was buried underneath 9 million stories about Russia Trump hysteria crap. No civil rights leaders bothered because it was just some white boy. According to sites like The Root, "It's white people's problem, not ours we got our own movement to deal with" (summarizing)


It sucks because you do have millions of cops in the country that are doing an awesome job. But one a-hole sets it all back. And I think I've ever claimed that all cops are anything close perfect.

Ultimately, people want to feel safe, and that's separate from whether they're actually safe. If people don't feel like they can trust the police, that's a problem all of it's own as that makes good policing that much harder. Add on that even a couple of these unlawful murders start to cast doubt over the rest of the shootings and you lose public trust.

Of course, people should be safe and feel it. But when one side goes out of their way to make people feel unsafe simply for their own gain, that's wrong.

How do you feel about greater transparency around investigations and punishments (if appropriate) for police officers? I feel like in this age of social media it would go a long way for police departments to build trust with their community if they publically demonstrated how they hold themselves accountable for their actions.

Transparency around investigations absolutely, but there you do have to balance the nuance. The nature of the job is sometimes very grey and the Monday morning quarterback (not sure if you have that expression there, but it's like the armchair expert) mentality doesn't do well with something that involved a situation that required tenths of a second to make a life or death decision. And to top it off, if the investigation leads to a criminal charge, that could greatly hamper the rights of the defendant in receiving a fair trial, since many of the jurors would have been influenced by the court of public opinion. But yes, I'm for it just not without limits.

Punishments, I'm not really sure I follow. But we don't do public executions here like at the Bastille lol.


As for social media, yeah I think it's a great way and it's actually become very popular (more to save them from getting sued than anything), where they will release the body/dash cam footage of an incident right away unedited. That was actually how they showed those two scumbags were making up false statements about being racially harassed, profiled, and for the lady raped. But several departments are doing it and I'm all for it. Keep in mind, they review the footage first before releasing it. if you mean like a live stream Parascope of the dash/body cam...that will 100% never happen because that potentially violates several rights of the perp.

 

[Mr Tree]

When 88% of those cases involve someone drawing a weapon a cop, that is not cause for concern on police behavior. If somebody is coming at you with a knife, bat, candelabra, crowbar, or a gun, with the intent to cause your or others harm. You kill them. Your life is more important and valuable than theirs. If that is in anyway objectionable to you than the chasm is simply too great and we will simply agree to disagree.

Wouldn't that infringe on the way your freedomsbare protected? It's eemssentially deathsentence without a trail. And so does away with the right to a fair trial.
I also disagree with shoot to kill being more humane. If a shooting occurs in belgium police try to immobelise and are often able to get them to the hospital in a reasonable amount of time.

Now what I wanted to say is you seem to be used to discussing people with the standard left-right attitude. I think this since you make a lot of stereotypical assumptions aboyt ypur 'opponents'. But most people on this board are not just sope partisan chills, most people have their own opinion.

I think both for you and the rest it would be more enjoyable/interesting if you'd ask someones position before to jump to conclusions or include in ypu assertion that you asume it so people can refute or confirm this.

 

[AbeFroman75]

Wouldn't that infringe on the way your freedomsbare protected? It's eemssentially deathsentence without a trail. And so does away with the right to a fair trial.
I also disagree with shoot to kill being more humane. If a shooting occurs in belgium police try to immobelise and are often able to get them to the hospital in a reasonable amount of time.

Now what I wanted to say is you seem to be used to discussing people with the standard left-right attitude. I think this since you make a lot of stereotypical assumptions aboyt ypur 'opponents'. But most people on this board are not just sope partisan chills, most people have their own opinion.

I think both for you and the rest it would be more enjoyable/interesting if you'd ask someones position before to jump to conclusions or include in ypu assertion that you asume it so people can refute or confirm this.

No because police are granted the power to perform the duty of law enforcement as well as the use of deadly force. If it is deemed that they acted criminally then they get charged and tried. However, they can still be sued in a civil court even if no criminal charges are brought against them. And usually in a civil court the burden of proof is much lower. If you want something more specific you'd have to research which state you're looking for and contact an attorney that deals with those kinds of cases, because things get very complicated very quickly.

Have you ever gone hunting? There are some instances where you can be fined or possibly even arrested if you intentionally maim an animal instead of killing it. Being that it's cruelty. Similar to a human. The rule is you don't stop until they are no longer a threat. To put a finer point, shooting someone in the leg can hit a major artery and cause them to bleed out prolonging their agony they can also still come at you and cause you harm, these things tend to happen in seconds. Also, I'm not sure if you've ever been shooting before but hitting a moving target at a specific point is much harder than it seems. Especially when you are jacked up with adrenaline. So you aim for center mass, even though someone can take a lot of rounds from something like a 9mm o if hit center mass the ideal scenario is that you sever the spinal chord and that's it, threat has ceased.

Here's a little more info if you'd like.
http://concealednation.org/2015/11/why-we-always-aim-center-mass-instead-of-limbs-or-head/


Edit: For the Belgium, or Brussels maybe more specific police, do you have a source showing that they use a firearm for anything other than lethal force? I can understand ceasing fire when the threat is down but not dead (that's actually very common as people usually don't drop like flies).

 

[Mr Tree]

No because police are granted the power to perform the duty of law enforcement as well as the use of deadly force. If it is deemed that they acted criminally then they get charged and tried. However, they can still be sued in a civil court even if no criminal charges are brought against them. And usually in a civil court the burden of proof is much lower. If you want something more specific you'd have to research which state you're looking for and contact an attorney that deals with those kinds of cases, because things get very complicated very quickly.

Have you ever gone hunting? There are some instances where you can be fined or possibly even arrested if you intentionally maim an animal instead of killing it. Being that it's cruelty. Similar to a human. The rule is you don't stop until they are no longer a threat. To put a finer point, shooting someone in the leg can hit a major artery and cause them to bleed out prolonging their agony they can also still come at you and cause you harm, these things tend to happen in seconds. Also, I'm not sure if you've ever been shooting before but hitting a moving target at a specific point is much harder than it seems. Especially when you are jacked up with adrenaline. So you aim for center mass, even though someone can take a lot of rounds from something like a 9mm o if hit center mass the ideal scenario is that you sever the spinal chord and that's it, threat has ceased.

Here's a little more info if you'd like.
http://concealednation.org/2015/11/why-we-always-aim-center-mass-instead-of-limbs-or-head/


Edit: For the Belgium, or Brussels maybe more specific police, do you have a source showing that they use a firearm for anything other than lethal force? I can understand ceasing fire when the threat is down but not dead (that's actually very common as people usually don't drop like flies).

I agree it's hard and I didn't mean they can't use deadly force. What I meant is if there are other ways to stop him shooting in the leg and such. Off course this implies a not so much moving target I agree with that otherwise center mass is probably your best option.

I just disagree with the notion that if you shoot you shoot to kill. This to me implied that this is the just thing to do. I don't really care if it hurts for a few days of the benefit is stayong alive.

What you say about the stop shooting when treath is neutralised is correct in belgium.
I can't instantly cope.up with a record. But I can find an article of a police trying to shoot the tire of a car instead of the driver. He failed and shot a 3 year old refugee child. But intended to not use lethal force. I'll edit the post.

Just a question why the brussels poli e specifically. (Honnest question)

 

[Famine]

I always find the difference in police attitudes across the Atlantic interesting. UK police tend to put citizens' lives - even those that may be a threat - ahead of their own, while US police tend to put their lives ahead of that of the threat they're facing.

In the UK, police officers treat criminals as citizens who are, for whatever reason, not functioning as they should, and the first of the many people they're supposed to protect. The police are trained in de-escalation and containment, to reduce the threat and keep it from causing harm or damage to itself or others. If they've just collared someone robbing an offie, they'll talk them down if necessary, then arrest and restrain them. They'll even talk to someone who is sufficiently dangerous that they're posing an active threat to the safety of others, in the hope of saving as many lives as possible including the threat's life. Deadly force is a last resort that requires specifically trained officers and authorisation, and an officer that discharges a firearm will often never carry a firearm on duty again - and will commonly retire from the force. It's very, very rare that an officer will fire first to neutralise a potential threat, and where it happens there's a prolonged public inquest.

In the US, shoot first, ask questions later seems to be the style. Put the threat down, let the courts deal with it. It's about the only possible explanation for the number of times a cop has put a bullet into someone that might have looked a bit threatening but in fact proved to be no threat at all, like a child waving a BB gun. This happens quite a lot, and, sure, the BB gun often looks just like a real gun, but the officer that shot them was usually acting in self-interest (the "gun" was pointing at them) and not the preservation of all citizens' lives, including the one waving the "gun". And it's not like open carry is even automatically illegal in the first place...


You even see the difference in automotive policing. UK pursuit drivers won't continue a car chase if it gets too dangerous - if it has the potential to bring harm to themselves, the car they're pursuing or the public. They won't chase a car four-up with drunk teenagers at 70mph into a city centre, although they will get a helicopter up as quick as possible to track them without them knowing they're being chased. They have a number of techniques for bringing a chase to a safe end, called Tactical Pursuit and Containment (TPAC) which can involve vehicle-to-vehicle contact where safe to do so, typically with three or more police cars to slow and stop the target car, although one car may be used to pin or trap another in some circumstances. And they have to be trained for it, and ask permission to use it in any given pursuit.

US police cars have ram bars to smack into target vehicles to spin them out (that's a byword for "make them lose control of the vehicle", which is phenomenally dangerous) or cause severe damage to disable them. According to the very many police dashcams and TV shows I've seen, there doesn't seem to be much of a concern if that also damages civilian vehicles or property in the process. Although both sets of police also employ stingers to slowly deflate car tyres in order to reduce the road speeds of a pursuit.


Perhaps this is emergent from the different attitudes of the two societies. Guns aren't the USA's problem (they're just a tool), violence is. Quite a great many Americans (although that number is reducing) are shockingly quick to resort to violence - or threats of violence - to resolve or avenge a perceived slight or injustice. Entertainment - television, film, games - normalises gunfire as a way to defend yourself (it isn't; it's a way to attack someone else) and the concepts of goodies vs. baddies and that someone else's life is forfeit if they can be viewed as a villain. Although sometimes you shouldn't kill the villain because you "need him alive" (when did execution become the default position, and only excepted when someone is necessary?).

We have some of this attitude in the UK too, but it seems far less prevalent. Most violence, where it occurs, is between the young - particularly the young of poorer, denser areas - and when drunk. And road rage, of course, although that too is a recent phenomenon and seems to be an emergent property of increased traffic density. It seems like if you cram people together, they get a bit fighty, which makes it a bit odder that 60 million people sharing an island are less fighty (or at least no more fighty) than 300 million people spread out across what's pretty much a continent.


It's even odder as the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are among the best thought-out documents in history. Together they create an effective legal guarantee that government won't do a bunch of things to stop you from living your life. Perhaps there's something about legally guaranteed freedom that makes some people think those who impact on their lives negatively as evil.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I always find the difference in police attitudes across the Atlantic interesting. UK police tend to put citizens' lives - even those that may be a threat - ahead of their own, while US police tend to put their lives ahead of that of the threat they're facing.

Perhaps this is emergent from the different attitudes of the two societies.

I think I agree with the sentiment... Kill or be killed, shoot first - ask questions later, the best defence is a good offence... this is quite often the tone I get when reading the gun debates.

 

[UKMikey]

As far as British policing is concerned terrible accidents like five year old John Shorthouse's fatal shooting seem to have been at least part of the impetus behind at least one force's decision to move away from training rank and file officers and towards specialist firearms units.

 

[baldgye]

In more British news.. David Davis looks like he might be resigning due to his own incompetence... or seemingly impossible task of actually carrying out Brexit...

And the editor of the Daily Mail, the newspaper who championed anti European sentiment for years and years is now running away, as the ashes fall...


All while ol’Nige is now lying about what he said prior to Brexit, now claiming he never said we would be better off...


It’s all looking good for Brexiters! Smooth sailing into never ending prosperity!!

 

[Famine]

I think I agree with the sentiment... Kill or be killed, shoot first - ask questions later, the best defence is a good offence... this is quite often the tone I get when reading the gun debates.

And the thing is, I like guns. I've shot them (in a range, at targets) and don't view them as the massive problem that a lot of folk on this side of the Atlantic think they are in the USA. They're just tools - tools that a lot of people find useful and many require for their jobs, and many more besides like as a deterrent to criminals. It's not even an availability problem - for the most part, the laws already exist to stop people who shouldn't have them from getting them. The USA's "gun" problem seems to be a violence and mental health problem.

Even when we had much wider gun availability, before Hungerford, we didn't have the same levels of violence using firearms. Or at all - most of our pre-Hungerford spree killings and mass killing attacks were bombings by the IRA and protesting civilians shot by the military (Merthyr, Newport, Peterloo, Preston). We've had four mass shootings in history, with two after the Firearms (Amendment) Act introduced after the second one, and the last one after the Firearms (Amendment) Act introduced after the third one. All four perpetrators had serious mental health issues. We've had another two - Raoul Moat (2010) and Robert Sartin (1989) - who killed three between them and both had serious mental health issues.

Nor did Australia - and Australians love to champion the fact that they've had no school shootings since banning guns, but it's not like they had any before. In fact there's under 20 recorded mass shootings in Australian history, and one was in May this year.


To me it seems like the attitudes of our different police forces towards threats are representative of our different societies. In the US threats are to be defeated, the UK they are to be contained. I can't imagine how hard life must be for a US police officer, being expected to kill and having to deal with the psychological trauma of doing so.

 

[Liquid]

Even when we had much wider gun availability, before Hungerford, we didn't have the same levels of violence using firearms. Or at all - most of our pre-Hungerford spree killings and mass killing attacks were bombings by the IRA and protesting civilians shot by the military (Merthyr, Newport, Peterloo, Preston). We've had four mass shootings in history, with two after the Firearms (Amendment) Act introduced after the second one, and the last one after the Firearms (Amendment) Act introduced after the third one. All four perpetrators had serious mental health issues. We've had another two - Raoul Moat (2010) and Robert Sartin (1989) - who killed three between them and both had serious mental health issues.

Just for what it's worth, there were also the 2010 Cumbria shootings in which 12 people were killed but I'm not sure if Derrick Bird was someone with mental health issues or whether he was motivated by a grudge or perceived injustice.

 

[Famine]

Just for what it's worth, there were also the 2010 Cumbria shootings in which 12 people were killed but I'm not sure if Derrick Bird was someone with mental health issues or whether he was motivated by a grudge or perceived injustice.

That was the fourth one.

He suffered a serious assault three years before his spree. He was beaten unconscious by a group of men who didn't want to pay him for his taxi ride. Several friends said they believed his character totally changed after the attack and had sought help with his mental health. He was apparently under investigation by HMRC and reportedly come to believe that his (twin) brother was conspiring to send him to prison for tax evasion over a dispute regarding their father's will - calling his brother more than 40 times in the three days before the shootings. His brother and the solicitor dealing with the will were the first two victims. And then he killed himself.

 

[Liquid]

That was the fourth one.

Fair enough, I sort of misread your post and only realised after posting. 👍

 

[Imari]

I'm saying it is an irrational fear.

What about the cases where the police have been shown to be racially profiling? Joe Arpaio seems a perfect example.

Your claim that because of my skin color couldn't be more wrong. When I was 19 my buddy and I were driving through Marina Del Rey (a very expensive part of LA) in a beat up truck. We were pulled over, detained, vehicle searched, and questioned because as the cop said "You don't look like the kind of people that belong in the neighborhood." We were polite, told him I was visiting my dad that lived in the area, gave him the address and he let us go. We weren't combative and were complying with everything despite being "profiled". In college, campus police pulled their guns on me because I was suspiciously looking like I was trying to break into a car (it was mine, and I locked the keys inside). Nothing happened, I was compliant as all hell because I didn't want to get shot. Turns out there had been a string of break ins and they were on the look out for someone that was possibly armed.

Anecdote is not the singular of data.

I do find it odd that campus police pulled their guns on you instead of engaging in conversation. "Hey kid, can you come over here and have a word with us?" would seem a much safer and friendlier way of starting that engagement.

Stop making this about something exclusive only to blacks. I say that because of this: "I claim that you've managed to avoid learning about these things because you're white" Your words not mine. If I misunderstood you, I would be all for clarification.

Sorry if I make it seem like it's exclusive to blacks. It's not. It happens to any number of minorities who for whatever reason are deemed highly likely to being criminal by the police. But it's almost never whites, because the police force is still dominated by white men.

I understand you're not familiar with police tactics in the US but they draw their weapons to make sure they have the fastest possible response time should the need arise. To have a weapon (weapon means gun for the uninitiated) at the ready vs. having to draw, point, aim is much more advantageous. Also they can't just walk around drawing their weapon for every little thing. They can actually get into serious crap if they do. As an unrelated example. If a cop walks up to question you, they don't have their weapon drawn. If you get pulled over for speeding they won't point a gun in your face. If you take them on a chase instead of pulling over, they will have their weapons drawn and issue you commands.

Just to be clear, weapon does not mean gun. There are numerous weapons that a police officer may use, a gun is only one of them. Although I take it from some of your previous posts in the thread that the gun is the primary weapon and others are not used as much.

I understand the reasons for having your gun drawn. But you do so when you expect to need to use it in a hurry, and you only use a gun to kill. The police knows this and the public knows this, so having a drawn gun is an implied death threat.

That's a two edged sword. It can aid with compliance such that you don't have to actually use the gun, but it can also make people behave in ways that they otherwise wouldn't.

when you say things like this "I claim that you've managed to avoid learning about these things because you're white. If you were a young black man in the wrong area of the wrong city, you would not be able to avoid learning about how police will profile you." It's pretty easy to. That is pretty much exactly the reasoning they use "You haven't experienced it because you're white." Like I carry around the Gold Rewards Whitey Card that I show police and they grant me three wishes.

Come on, you're smart enough to know that just because I happen to share one opinion with a group of people I don't necessarily share all of their views. I'm right here, if you want to know my views on something you can ask me instead of pigeonholing.

"Doesn't have the will to do so" ?! WTF, you want to explain that one a little further?

After Australia's Port Arthur massacre, there was a lot of public push for greater gun control. It's a long story, but we ended up with very, very tight gun registration and ownership restrictions and a government buy back campaign that destroyed a significant amount of firearms.

That wouldn't work in the US, partly because US citizens don't want to give up their guns. It worked in Australia primarily because there was overwhelming public support for doing so. But taking away people's guns is not something you can force on a population, it has to be the will of the people.

Have you heard Al Sharpton or The Root?

Are they here? Are they taking part in this conversation?

Of course there are people in the world who have said that and other stupid things. You're on GTPlanet talking with specific people. If we can keep the accusations down to what we actually say to each other then that makes it much easier.

1 in 1000...if you are armed and trying to kill the cop. If you aren't pointing a gun or a knife or attacking a cop, it is a 100% irrational fear. But once again, that fear is pumped into (mostly) young black men that cops are out to get them and they have to fear the police. If you don't understand that by now I'm sorry but there is nothing more to tell you.

1 in 1000 if you're armed and trying to kill the cop seems like the cops are incompetent. Surely their aim isn't that bad.

You threw up a number of a million police contacts that we used to get to that 1 in 1000 statistic. Where did that million police contacts come from? Is that armed and aggressive police contacts, or all contacts, or what?

You're entire first and second post. And all the times you've referenced that black men, specifically, have to fear the police. Whites are fine because they've never had to experience being profiled.

See, that's not helpful. If I ask you for examples of where I'm being hyperbolic so that I can reassess and choose whether I want to correct myself, it doesn't give me any new information if you throw your hands up and say "EVERYTHING".

A candelabra will quite easily split your head open. If you're wondering why I chose candelabra, I remembered a story a few years back where some guy killed his wife with one and split her head open like a melon. Then when he charged the cops they lit him up

Yes?

The majority of my non-work, non-college met friends are cops and firefighters. See, I think you've got things incorrect though, if the cops do screw up I have no problem pointing that out. But when the vast majority of the time you see that the perp did everything wrong as in, resist, had a weapon of some type and didn't comply, fight the cops, reach for their gun, etc. and the cops get all the blame because "they're all racist" (not saying you said that, it's just a very common thing said among certain people).

Fair enough. I think it's reasonable to expect that from the family of whoever has just been shot, that's just part of the territory. Few people are going to thank you for shooting their son.

I do think it's unfortunate that the media tends to jump on the anti-police train so quickly. It would help if the police both got credit for when they did their jobs well as well as criticism when they do it poorly.

Honestly, the first thing that springs to my mind when I hear that a policeman has shot someone is "damn, I wonder how he's feeling about now". Because even for the most hardened, militant cop in a situation that clearly calls for the subject to be shot, it's a hard thing to do. It's a hard thing to live with, even knowing you did the right thing.

And this I think is also part of the problem. Because there are grievances with certain parts of the police force, a lot of people don't want to say anything positive about the police for fear of "encouraging" them. But I think one can disapprove or oppose the monolithic police system, and still treat individual police officers with the respect that they have earned.

Now you know 100% that is not true. You make a choice, one has to die. You or some scumbag that's just killed someone and is now coming at you with a knife or a gun. It's not about wanting to kill them, it's about having to. It's you or him you don't want to kill him but you have to save your life or others. By nature, value your life above others. Certain people are able to put value into helping others over their own life but that's an entirely different aspect.

You probably shouldn't try to tell me what I know about my own opinions on law enforcement, community and protection.

I disagree that someone has to die. Sometimes that's the best way to resolve a situation, but it's always undesirable. Criminals are part of the community too. A surprising number of violent criminals are mentally ill in some way, and as someone who has had mental illness I have some understanding of what they're fighting against.

I'm not going to lay down my life for no reason, but at the same time I'm willing to take a certain amount of risk to see if I can't engineer a situation where neither of us have to die.



I think this is a perfect example. Two officers were struggling to restrain a really very large teenager. This guy rocked up and could have added his force or a weapon to the mix. Instead he de-escalates and engages with the kid.

No that was serious. If you don't feel safe here, don't come here. That would suck to go to a place where you feel like you're in constant danger. If you do or don't that's none of my business and i"m not implying anything.

Don't do that. Saying "if you don't feel safe in a place don't go there" is a trivial statement. You don't say that to anyone over the age of six, and you certainly don't say it to an adult.

Whether you meant it or not, the strong implication was that you were attempting to shut the conversation down.

Oh, absolutely, I'll do you one better. The case of Daniel Shaver. By far and away the worst shooting of an unarmed person I have ever seen. I don't know the rules regarding posting content that involves someone being killed (there is no blood or gore) But it is despicable. Here put this in your youtube search bar (Body-Cam Video Of Daniel Shaver Shooting | Los Angeles Times)
The cop that shot him, was acquitted of 2nd degree murder. I asked cop friends about the video to see if maybe it was something I missed (I've never been in that situation so it's best to keep an open mind) and none of them could justify the shooting. To top it off, this did not make the 24/7 coverage with the CNN Brady Bunch panel of "experts". It was buried underneath 9 million stories about Russia Trump hysteria crap. No civil rights leaders bothered because it was just some white boy. According to sites like The Root, "It's white people's problem, not ours we got our own movement to deal with" (summarizing)

I actually referenced it in my earlier post.

To my mind, to use lethal force there has to be a reasonable belief that you're under threat of imminent death or severe bodily harm. Depending on the situation, that can absolutely be the case if an unarmed guy is coming at you. If you're there, alone, without backup and he's twice your size then yeah, that's reasonable. If there's three of you and the guy hitches his pants up while he's crawling on the floor at your instruction, not so much.

No, it wasn't buried under Trump/Russia hysteria, it was at the start of 2016 when The Donald wasn't even expected to be the Republican candidate.

And stuff like "it's white people's problem" is exactly what makes me dislike stuff like BLM. At the end of the day, All Lives Matter. I get that they're trying to draw attention to a specific problem and I think that's fine, but when they start ignoring related injustices simply because people aren't the right colour they're no better than any other group of racists IMO.

It sucks because you do have millions of cops in the country that are doing an awesome job. But one a-hole sets it all back. And I think I've ever claimed that all cops are anything close perfect.

That's sort of how it is, though. When you get a colossal buttock like Brailsford, who is really damaging all police by associated, the best thing is to make an example of him. I understand and approve that police officers have a certain leeway with some aspects of the law due to the nature of their job, but when a police officer clearly commits a major crime I think that they should have the book thrown at them.

With power comes responsibility and all that; police are trusted to bend the law for the good of the community, so should they be found to be violating that trust I think the only way the community feels that justice is served is if their punishment is also particularly severe. I think you throw the few bad eggs under the bus to re-establish trust in the as you say millions of cops doing an awesome job.

Of course, people should be safe and feel it. But when one side goes out of their way to make people feel unsafe simply for their own gain, that's wrong.

It is. And I think that for years, especially during the Drug Wars, a lot of police departments functioned by instilling fear. It was an easy way to keep people in line.

I don't think it's sustainable for either side to exist based on instilling fear. Thankfully, investigations have started to break that culture down within the troublesome police departments, and hopefully the public will also stop once they see good evidence that those police departments can be trusted again.

Transparency around investigations absolutely, but there you do have to balance the nuance. The nature of the job is sometimes very grey and the Monday morning quarterback (not sure if you have that expression there, but it's like the armchair expert) mentality doesn't do well with something that involved a situation that required tenths of a second to make a life or death decision.

I'm aware of this and I've referenced before that I'm happy to give police leeway on what can be a tough job. Every decision can't be perfect. However, there's a difference between a decision that was well-meaning but flawed, or based on faulty information, and one that was never going to give a good outcome or was overtly reckless.

And to top it off, if the investigation leads to a criminal charge, that could greatly hamper the rights of the defendant in receiving a fair trial, since many of the jurors would have been influenced by the court of public opinion. But yes, I'm for it just not without limits.

Of course, I'm not saying jeopardise any investigation or trials that may be required. The information maybe isn't available the next day, or the next week. But I think even if it's six months later as long as the public knows that they will have access to see what "really" happened for themselves.

Punishments, I'm not really sure I follow. But we don't do public executions here like at the Bastille lol.

Making sure that when police are punished for serious misconduct it is made known to the community. "Officer Dingleberry has been sentenced to forty eleven years in prison without parole for his crime of murdering Mr. Wheedlebottom via multiple watermelon cannon shots to the nipples."

Whenever a police officer acts poorly, it reflects on the police system as a whole. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. That may not be fair, and in those cases where it's not I think it's worth making sure that it's well known that the police do not condone his actions and making it clear that he has been punished for them at least to the extent that any other citizen would be.

As for social media, yeah I think it's a great way and it's actually become very popular (more to save them from getting sued than anything), where they will release the body/dash cam footage of an incident right away unedited. That was actually how they showed those two scumbags were making up false statements about being racially harassed, profiled, and for the lady raped. But several departments are doing it and I'm all for it. Keep in mind, they review the footage first before releasing it. if you mean like a live stream Parascope of the dash/body cam...that will 100% never happen because that potentially violates several rights of the perp.

Correct, and this is one of the major obstacles at the moment. The cost of reviewing all that footage with a human is quite large. But AI systems are getting better at this stuff, and I expect soon we'll be able to turn all the trivial video review over to a computer.

 

[baldgye]

Police once again targeting music rather than the root causes.

Don’t remember this ever happening before... but it will almost definitely be successful!

 

[Imari]

Police once again targeting music rather than the root causes.

Don’t remember this ever happening before... but it will almost definitely be successful!

Rofl. It's like they're only just now learning about rap music. What's that, about fifty years late?

 

[UKMikey]

I thought drill music was what they played on military parade grounds during square bashing but it looks like the mainstream press is falling in lock step behind the police regarding this latest incarnation of "the devil's music" if this Torygraph article is anything to go by.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-bragged-moped-stabbings-youtube-court-hears/

 

[baldgye]

I thought drill music was what they played on military parade grounds during square bashing but it looks like the mainstream press is falling in lock step behind the police regarding this latest incarnation of "the devil's music" if this Torygraph article is anything to go by.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-bragged-moped-stabbings-youtube-court-hears/

Don’t worry, the police will save pour youth, like they solved drug deaths by club goers by going after Acid music and basically making it impossible for anyone to run a club

 

[AbeFroman75]

Just a question why the brussels poli e specifically. (Honnest question)

Just the first Belgium city that popped into my head besides Bruges. The reason I specified a city is because I assume that like most Western countries you guys don't have your national police doing the day to day patrol duties, that it would be handled by a city or county. And if it's like the US where different departments have different policies regarding protocol.

In the US, shoot first, ask questions later seems to be the style. Put the threat down, let the courts deal with it. It's about the only possible explanation for the number of times a cop has put a bullet into someone that might have looked a bit threatening but in fact proved to be no threat at all, like a child waving a BB gun. This happens quite a lot, and, sure, the BB gun often looks just like a real gun, but the officer that shot them was usually acting in self-interest (the "gun" was pointing at them) and not the preservation of all citizens' lives, including the one waving the "gun". And it's not like open carry is even automatically illegal in the first place...

I'm curious how you came up with that conclusion. Reason being is that it is a very common phrase (Shoot first ask questions later) tossed around by the anti-cop crowd here, and for the vast majority of situations it's simply not the case. A lot of that comes down to the media which does heavily focus on the worst situations. There's a saying here that you don't see a news story that says "Plane lands successfully." Common things don't make the news, which is one of the reasons why police shootings, especially of unarmed people (specifically blacks) make the news.

In respect to acting in self-interest, that's also not always the case. If you point a gun or something that looks very much like a gun at anyone, not just the cops they will kill you. If I'm waiving an airsoft gun that looks 100% real and I even begin to point it at civilians, not the cops, they will light me up. Which is why for stand off situations they block off the area and remove any civilians as quickly as possible so that those people are out of harms way. Then they make the situation so that the only people that are in danger are the fellow cops and the attacker. It's not just about protecting the lives of the cops, they put the overall community first.

You even see the difference in automotive policing. UK pursuit drivers won't continue a car chase if it gets too dangerous - if it has the potential to bring harm to themselves, the car they're pursuing or the public. They won't chase a car four-up with drunk teenagers at 70mph into a city centre, although they will get a helicopter up as quick as possible to track them without them knowing they're being chased. They have a number of techniques for bringing a chase to a safe end, called Tactical Pursuit and Containment (TPAC) which can involve vehicle-to-vehicle contact where safe to do so, typically with three or more police cars to slow and stop the target car, although one car may be used to pin or trap another in some circumstances. And they have to be trained for it, and ask permission to use it in any given pursuit.

US police cars have ram bars to smack into target vehicles to spin them out (that's a byword for "make them lose control of the vehicle", which is phenomenally dangerous) or cause severe damage to disable them. According to the very many police dashcams and TV shows I've seen, there doesn't seem to be much of a concern if that also damages civilian vehicles or property in the process. Although both sets of police also employ stingers to slowly deflate car tyres in order to reduce the road speeds of a pursuit.

Once again, I'm curious how you came to this conclusion? For many departments, especially SoCal where pursuits are more common than other parts of the country, they will back off on a pursuit so that the public is not in danger and the suspect doesn't become more erratic. What you described is with the drunk teenagers is pretty much exactly what's done here. Maybe you just watch the tail end of our pursuits? I'm not sure because these chases can often times take hours simply because the cops don't want to the public at risk. As for the pit maneuver(the spin them out as you refer), once again that is deployed when there is no risk to the public. Are there cases where the cops have screwed up, absolutely but those are not the norm. They do things like close off freeways, streets, etc. to mitigate endangering the lives of others.

Now in the 90s after the OJ situation police pursuits became much more common from the "copy cat" mentality. And it used to be policy of the LAPD, Chippers, and LASD to pursue and not back off, but as they became more frequent they quickly changed that and let the helicopter tag them while the cops followed at a much slower pace. (of course still closing off freeways and such.)

Now there was the case of someone that stole a tank (specifically an M60 Patton) and went on a tear through San Diego. So they couldn't have done the pit maneuver and spike strips would have been a tickle. Luckily the only person killed was the driver of the tank, but even then the cops were blasted by some in the media and the community for shooting him when he beached it.

You can read about it here, and curious to see if through your lens as a UK citizen, what you think could have been done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson_(San_Diego_Tank_Rampage)

To me it seems like the attitudes of our different police forces towards threats are representative of our different societies. In the US threats are to be defeated, the UK they are to be contained. I can't imagine how hard life must be for a US police officer, being expected to kill and having to deal with the psychological trauma of doing so.

I will once again disagree with you. Here the threats must be contained, then stopped. Contained so that the general public is at minimal risk. Once again, stopping the threat doesn't equal killing them. The ones where they are killed make the news because it's rare. That's why when you say "expected to kill" I will have to vehemently disagree with you. They simply are under no obligation to go around shooting any and all perceived threat.

Here's an interview I came across with a UK (specifically London) cop being interviewed by a US cop. When he is describing a situation where he has a gun pointed at him as "The decision of whether I live or die is in the hands of a 13 year old crack dealer." it's shocking and I can't imagine how hard it must be for UK cops to have to leave their lives in the hands of those that are out to do harm. Through my lens it's almost as if the UK government is intentionally putting the lives of officers at risk.

What about the cases where the police have been shown to be racially profiling? Joe Arpaio seems a perfect example.

What about them? Does it happen, yes, is profiling a large part of any kind of police work sure. Does it always involve race, most likely not and certainly not from the cops that I've spoken with. It's more down to behavior, body language, and appearance. If you have a group of guys that are dressed in the same manor as gang bangers that are exhibiting behavior that is consistent with such, or you have someone that looks like a tweaker (tend to be white) that is also exhibiting suspicious behavior, you'll pay closer attention to those people over say a little old lady that's just walking with a bag of groceries. Now the gang bangers and tweakers might be Nobel Laureates and the little old lady might be a mass murdering drug lord Isis fighter but the probability of those being the case is basically 0. That's why you pay attention to one and not the other.

Anecdote is not the singular of data.

I do find it odd that campus police pulled their guns on you instead of engaging in conversation. "Hey kid, can you come over here and have a word with us?" would seem a much safer and friendlier way of starting that engagement.

You specifically referred to me and my experience (or lack of experience). You were incorrect in your assumption.


Don't find it odd, I had an extended folding knife on the roof of the car directly in front of me and the person they were looking for had broken into a few cars and had assaulted/robbed a few students with a knife in nearby dorms. They were also looking for a Hispanic male and I had a healthy tan.

Two important things to do when dealing with the police (at least in this country, I'm not going to assume I know anything about yours) is 1.) keep your mouth shut, you can't talk your way out of being arrested, anything you say can and will be used against you. 2.) Do not resist, just comply.

These are obviously common sense, but unfortunately common sense isn't very common.

Sorry if I make it seem like it's exclusive to blacks. It's not. It happens to any number of minorities who for whatever reason are deemed highly likely to being criminal by the police. But it's almost never whites, because the police force is still dominated by white men.

See, there you go again in assuming something about the American system (that it is racist) that you very clearly don't have the entire story. You don't live here, so stop assuming that the American system is racist. You can have your opinion how ever wrong it may be but when you say things like happens only to minorities and almost never whites. You are wrong and simply repeating the same racist narrative of people like Al Sharpton and BLM.

I will not assume I know about the societal dynamics of Australia (no matter how much Aussie news I watch or googling I do), and I certainly won't spout off to an Australian about their societal dynamics like I'm some kind of expert because it would be incredibly idiotic. I can ask questions, because if I research something that seems strange or alarming to see maybe I don't have the entire story but I certainly won't cast aspersions on your society based on what I hear or read on the news.

Just to be clear, weapon does not mean gun. There are numerous weapons that a police officer may use, a gun is only one of them. Although I take it from some of your previous posts in the thread that the gun is the primary weapon and others are not used as much.

. When you say "the gun is the primary weapon and other are not used as much." do you mean that cops always go to their gun first? Please clarify.

That's a two edged sword. It can aid with compliance such that you don't have to actually use the gun, but it can also make people behave in ways that they otherwise wouldn't.

For a lot of situations they will tend to have their taser drawn first instead of their gun. Especially if someone is clearly unarmed. It's obviously not always the case but it's becoming more and more common. For things like clearing a building or a residence it's a different story and dependent on the conditions at that time, but it wouldn't be uncommon to have the gun at the ready. If you're looking for specific police procedures and tactics then I would say talk to a cop in the particular department (here in the US) you're interested in. Remember I'm getting my info from personally known cops but am not one or a lawyer myself.

After Australia's Port Arthur massacre, there was a lot of public push for greater gun control. It's a long story, but we ended up with very, very tight gun registration and ownership restrictions and a government buy back campaign that destroyed a significant amount of firearms.

That wouldn't work in the US, partly because US citizens don't want to give up their guns. It worked in Australia primarily because there was overwhelming public support for doing so. But taking away people's guns is not something you can force on a population, it has to be the will of the people.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the buyback was mandatory right? As in it was essentially gun confiscation as we would define it here in the US. Turn in your gun for some money but for those that don't you will be arrested. Would that assessment be accurate? Which if it is accurate, wouldn't be accurate to assume that it passed because of public support but it worked in implementation because it was forced?

You threw up a number of a million police contacts that we used to get to that 1 in 1000 statistic. Where did that million police contacts come from? Is that armed and aggressive police contacts, or all contacts, or what?

Ok, I will 100% admit that I was completely and totally wrong.

It came from a survey done in 2011 by the BJS (Bureau of Justice Statistics) and I will be more than happy to admit that I was not just wrong...but insanely, monumentally wrong. And that number should be closer to 63 million. Holy crap was I off. The 1.5 million were the number of pedestrian stops the survey concluded, not the total number of contacts.
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=70

But the total number of arrests in 2016 was 10,662,252 according to the FBI
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/persons-arrested


Sorry for the complete screw up. In my defense if I recall I was both posting here and doing work at the same time when I came up with that completely moronic fail.

I do think it's unfortunate that the media tends to jump on the anti-police train so quickly. It would help if the police both got credit for when they did their jobs well as well as criticism when they do it poorly.

Yeah, but remember how often do you see a headline that says "Plane lands at airport."

Honestly, the first thing that springs to my mind when I hear that a policeman has shot someone is "damn, I wonder how he's feeling about now". Because even for the most hardened, militant cop in a situation that clearly calls for the subject to be shot, it's a hard thing to do. It's a hard thing to live with, even knowing you did the right thing.

It depends on the department but if an officer is involved in a shooting and kills someone they are taken off duty and are forced to go to counseling and need to be cleared before returning to the active patrol duty with a gun. Essentially they can take as much time off as they need, if that system is abused I don't know enough to say one way or the other but I sure hope it isn't.

No, it wasn't buried under Trump/Russia hysteria, it was at the start of 2016 when The Donald wasn't even expected to be the Republican candidate.

The shooting was in 2016, and over here from the day he announced his candidacy it was 24/7 Trump hysteria. The trial concluded in December 2017, after Trump was elected and the Trump/Russia lunacy was already chugging along.

Of course, I'm not saying jeopardise any investigation or trials that may be required. The information maybe isn't available the next day, or the next week. But I think even if it's six months later as long as the public knows that they will have access to see what "really" happened for themselves.

Many departments will release footage, and it's becoming more and more common.

Making sure that when police are punished for serious misconduct it is made known to the community. "Officer Dingleberry has been sentenced to forty eleven years in prison without parole for his crime of murdering Mr. Wheedlebottom via multiple watermelon cannon shots to the nipples."

Ah, that's what you meant. Yeah they do that already. The DA (District Attorney)or the court will issue a press release of the verdict then the sentence when that is concluded. They will make the national news if it's a major story but more often then not it's a footnote at the bottom of the hour for local news affiliates. But it's always on social media.

 

[baldgye]

Gordon Bennit!


Anyway... seems our foreign secretary had a private dinner speach that was leaked... and he had some interesting things to say

 

[Touring Mars]

Ironically, losing BJ would be a huge blow for the government.

 

[UKMikey]

Anyway... seems our foreign secretary had a private dinner speach that was leaked... and he had some interesting things to say

"Imagine Trump doing Brexit,” Johnson said. “He’d go in bloody hard…"

I bet that's what Stormy said...

 

[MatskiMonk]

Ironically, losing BJ would be a huge blow for the government.

Insert Ooooh Matron! .gif

 

[baldgye]

Ironically, losing BJ would be a huge blow for the government.

A circus without its cheif clown is pretty lame

 

[Touring Mars]

Those calling for Boris Johnson to be sacked are missing the point a tad - while Trump remains in charge of the US, Boris Johnson is about the best possible Foreign Secretary we could have... both are fluent in Buffoon, the new language of international diplomacy. Also, Theresa May's hands are well and truly tied - I doubt she could sack Johnson even if nothing would give her greater pleasure.

 

[baldgye]

Those calling for Boris Johnson to be sacked are missing the point a tad - while Trump remains in charge of the US, Boris Johnson is about the best possible Foreign Secretary we could have... both are fluent in Buffoon, the new language of international diplomacy. Also, Theresa May's hands are well and truly tied - I doubt she could sack Johnson even if nothing would give her greater pleasure.

Indeed, we had a similar issue a few months ago when it looked like Boris would be on the way out.

May is so weak she can’t do anything other than slowly move forward toward oblivion.
It’s times like this when Corbyn should be strung up. The government is weak, so very weak, yet not only does he refuse to attack the government and act like an actual opposition. He can’t even manage the own fires in his own party about antisemitism... it’s staggering and deeply frustrating how useless he is.



Also, can we have all the epic essays on US Police spoilered? It makes scrolling through this thread on mobile a huge hassle

 

[ExigeEvan]

Even when we had much wider gun availability, before Hungerford, we didn't have the same levels of violence using firearms.

Not sure if it's just the circles I swim in (rural, ex-military and people with expensive hobbies) but I don't see gun ownership as a difficult hurdle in the UK.

To own a rifle is a slow process and it does require some justification (club membership or permission to shoot on land). You then need to pass rudimentary background checks and home inspection. Shotgun certificate is similar but you supposedly have a lower threshold to justify ownership. Neither are a quick process.

But I certainly don't view it as a 'ban'. And I've even fired privately owned machine guns and 3+ shotguns in the UK. 'Handguns' are banned more widely but again you can own a long barrel revolver!

 

[Imari]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the buyback was mandatory right? As in it was essentially gun confiscation as we would define it here in the US. Turn in your gun for some money but for those that don't you will be arrested. Would that assessment be accurate? Which if it is accurate, wouldn't be accurate to assume that it passed because of public support but it worked in implementation because it was forced?

Of course it was, those firearms were illegal. But tell me how effective you think even a mandatory gun confiscation would be in the US? I'd put money that the vast majority would tell the government to stick it up their pooper. That's exactly how effective it would be in Australia if people weren't inclined to give up their firearms. We're not really known for our subtlety or respect for authority.

And you can't exactly go door to door and take them from people, particularly when large numbers of guns aren't registered. Either they hand them in or they don't. If they don't, the government will never know.

They also had a secondary buyback in 2003 when they changed the law again, and there have been a number of amnesties where people could hand in firearms without any consequences. There seems to be continued ongoing support, probably because it seems to work for us.

It all worked because people were willing to hand their firearms in. I don't see that happening in the US. It's just not how your culture works at this stage of history. I think trying to pass such a law in the US would be political suicide, and attempting to enforce such a law would risk riots and armed insurrection.

Yeah, but remember how often do you see a headline that says "Plane lands at airport."

I'm talking more along the lines of "Plane hit by birds on takeoff but pilot manages to land safely". I agree you don't need media attention for people just doing their jobs, but I'd like to see more positive stories on police who do their jobs exceptionally well as well as exceptionally poorly. Like the one I posted above.