9 ms·

But how many criminals in germany and UK shoot at the police officers? I think that this US number is also very different from the German/UK number.

ajuc 6y ago
This is another evidence USA system is insane and needs to change.
- pyritefan 6y ago
  There are many, many other countries with very strict gun control laws. The US is arguably the only location on Earth where people have a somewhat unrestricted right to arm themselves. Should there not be any place in the world where people who believe in personally having the power to defend themselves against attackers and a tyrannical government are able to do so?
chrisseaton 6y ago
Maybe criminals in the US carry and use guns because they fear violence from the police? If you think the police are going to kill you either way, you might as well go out shooting! In the UK you know the police are going to respectfully arrest you and treat you well, so might as well give in rather than escalate it to a firefight. But generally I think it's crazy that the police in the US are armed. Most policing doesn't need lethal weaponry, and community officers shouldn't be armed. Leave guns to specialist units when required. I know Floyd wasn't killed with a gun, but I think disarming the police would be the right response and first step towards reducing police violence, as it de-escalates every interaction.
- ajsnigrutin 6y ago
  You can do this in UK, where weapons look like this: https://twitter.com/mpsregentspark/status/974645778558980096 https://twitter.com/mpsregentspark/status/974645778558980096 But in places with criminals being heavily armed, having unarmed police, just makes the police more vulnerable.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    But my thesis is that the criminals are heavily armed because they know that the police are violent. If the police were less violent, the criminals may see less need to arm themselves. In the US a criminal needs to be ready to defend themselves to the death in any interaction with the police. In the UK, they don't.
    - ajsnigrutin 6y ago
      I'm not sure if that's a valid point... i was always under the impression, that most of the violence in "violent cities" is due to violent gang, and that gang members are armed because they have to deal with other criminals/gangs (eg. if you sell drugs, to protect yourself and your drugs from being stolen, or to have "leverage" when racketeering, fighthing for "teritory", etc).
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        So why are police carrying guns outside of these violent cities? Why does a police officer in a nice suburban area who attends things like noisy parties... carry a lethal firearm? That's absolutely crazy to me, and should be to everyone else.
        ajsnigrutin 6y ago
        Because if something does happen there, they use the gun for their protection. Same as in Germany (where the police is also armed). And pretty much every other country, even very peaceful ones, except probably UK.
        chrisseaton 6y ago
        > Because if something does happen there, they use the gun for their protection. But this is (literally) overkill in my opinion. You could justify a flamethrower by saying 'they'd use it for their protection'. Most community police officers do not need to carry lethal weapons as they do not need that level of protection. They're patrolling communities, not war zones.
- GordonS 6y ago
  > In the UK you know the police are going to respectfully arrest you and treat you well I agree this will be the case most of the time, but it's worth pointing out this is not always the case. The MET in particular are rather infamous for their level of institutionalised racism, which while undoubtedly better than it used to be, still leaves much to be considered. Anecdotally, I have family members in the police force in London and in Scotland. The ones in London like to regale others with tales of how much they enjoy donning their riot gear and using any excuse to batter people, especially if they are black. The ones in Scotland tell of how prisoners are routinely abused - usually at a "minor" level, such as slapping a prisoner for no reason, but in one indicent a prisoner's head was smashed off a radiator.
  - JoeSmithson 6y ago
    > "The ones in London like to regale others with tales of how much they enjoy donning their riot gear and using any excuse to batter people, especially if they are black" If this is true then you need to immediately report it to MPS DPS and IOPC.
    - GordonS 6y ago
      It is true, but I last heard this a few years ago, and have absolutely no evidence. One of them has also since retired from the MET.
      - JoeSmithson 6y ago
        What do you mean you have no evidence? I thought they said this directly to you?
        GordonS 6y ago
        That would be my word against theirs - that is not evidence that means anything.
        6y ago
- DanBC 6y ago
  > In the UK you know the police are going to respectfully arrest you and treat you well, UK police are racist and they subject black people to disproportionate use of police powers.
  - VBprogrammer 6y ago
    Yes, I think it's important us in the UK not to be too self congratulatory on these issues. The UK have a similar racial skew in the number of people imprisoned from BAME communities compared to their representation in the overall population. The reasons for this are many fold, ranging from poorer opportunities and education to more severe punishments for crimes committed. That said, extrajudicial killings are extraordinarily rare in the UK. I don't think anyone, even someone from those communities, would ever expect to die during an interaction with the police in normal circumstances. While in the US it's becoming clear that there is a real fear of any police interaction being escalated to that point.
    - DanBC 6y ago
      Lethal violence is rarer, because UK police tend not to carry guns and are trained in de-escalation and to only use guns as a last resort. It does happen though, and it disproportionately happens to black people. https://twitter.com/korrinesky/status/1267085008210210816?s=20 https://twitter.com/korrinesky/status/1267085008210210816?s=... Moving away from law enforcement to mental health treatment we see black people are more likely to be detained under the mental health act, spend longer in detention, are more likely to be on CTOs, are more likely to be on forensic sections. In hospital they're more likely to be subjected to seclusion, restraint, and rapid tranquillisation.
- throwawayay02 6y ago
  > Maybe criminals in the US carry and use guns because they fear violence from the police? Criminals SHOULD fear the police, they are the ones committing crimes in the first place. Jesus Christ what is wrong with people.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > Criminals SHOULD fear the police You've left out a word there, haven't you? 'Violence'. They should fear being arrested with minimum possible force, but they shouldn't fear extrajudicial violence.
    - pyritefan 6y ago
      Police responding to a very real threat to their lives with lethal force (which is the majority of police shootings: police responding to criminals shooting at them) is not extrajudicial violence, it is self defence and protecting citizens. It is not feasible to respond to a lethal threat by a criminal with non-lethal force, lethal force is the minimum possible force to stop the threat.
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    > Criminals SHOULD fear the police, they are the ones committing crimes There are crimes and crimes. We are talking here about a man being deliberately, painfully and slowly executed for 9 minutes, in front of a crowd, whereas crying for his life... ...for the crime of trying to scam 20 dollars! Is this the value of your life if you are a jobless black man in US?. $20? Sorry but this is inexcusable
    - pinkfoot 6y ago
      ALLEGEDLY trying to scam $20. Its certainly also never the police's role to decide who is guilty. For all those police knew, at the time of arrest, it was Mr. Floyd who was the victim of a false accusation.
      - pvaldes 6y ago
- gadders 6y ago
  I would imagine criminals carry guns because it is easier to make their victims hand over their valuables or submit to being raped.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  > Maybe criminals in the US carry and use guns because they fear violence from the police? Criminals carry guns because other criminals carry guns, and because prospective victims generally do not carry guns. Most criminals are not going to be interested to pull a gun on the police. If they can make the gun disappear when encountering the police, they will. > In the UK you know the police are going to respectfully arrest you and treat you well, so might as well give in rather than escalate it to a firefight. In the UK you also don't face the same penalties. If it's twenty-five to life, people are likely to resist arrest by all means. > But generally I think it's crazy that the police in the US are armed. Most policing doesn't need lethal weaponry, and community officers shouldn't be armed. Leave guns to specialist units when required. Sure, most policing doesn't need arms, but most behavior doesn't need policing either. If you were a police officer, would you, unarmed, engage another person wielding a hatchet? I'd say that's unlikely. Would you even take the job if you were unarmed? Of course that means police kill/injure fewer people, but they also prevent fewer people from killing or injuring others. > I know Floyd wasn't killed with a gun, but I think disarming the police would be the right response and first step towards reducing police violence, as it de-escalates every interaction. It would de-escalate in the sense that there won't be any policing. Officers aren't going to engage a potentially armed criminal with just pepper spray. If you could assume that the person you are trying to arrest most likely does not carry a gun, like in Europe, it would be different. That's just not going to happen in the US.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > If you were a police officer, would you, unarmed, engage another person wielding a hatchet? I'd say that's unlikely. Would you even take the job if you were unarmed? Great example! Here's how the UK engage someone wielding a machete, without guns or any other weapons beside extendable batons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzPj_IaMzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzPj_IaMzY They try to deescalate, they bring in reinforcements, they surround, then they disarm him using shields, not weapons, and he survives to stand a fair trial. No guns needed. And if they thought they couldn't arrest him using shields they could call in a specialist firearms unit, who are specifically trained, authorised, and accountable.
villahousut 6y ago
This is irrelevant. Between US states there is no correlation between violent crime and police shootings: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ckwnky8QQfgBCZ2p2LcwrbslC5yI93fLI_inuCKqmIg/htmlview#gid=343544596 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ckwnky8QQfgBCZ2p2Lcw...

ajuc 6y ago

This is another evidence USA system is insane and needs to change.

pyritefan 6y ago
There are many, many other countries with very strict gun control laws. The US is arguably the only location on Earth where people have a somewhat unrestricted right to arm themselves. Should there not be any place in the world where people who believe in personally having the power to defend themselves against attackers and a tyrannical government are able to do so?

chrisseaton 6y ago

Maybe criminals in the US carry and use guns because they fear violence from the police? If you think the police are going to kill you either way, you might as well go out shooting! In the UK you know the police are going to respectfully arrest you and treat you well, so might as well give in rather than escalate it to a firefight. But generally I think it's crazy that the police in the US are armed. Most policing doesn't need lethal weaponry, and community officers shouldn't be armed. Leave guns to specialist units when required. I know Floyd wasn't killed with a gun, but I think disarming the police would be the right response and first step towards reducing police violence, as it de-escalates every interaction.

ajsnigrutin 6y ago
You can do this in UK, where weapons look like this: https://twitter.com/mpsregentspark/status/974645778558980096 https://twitter.com/mpsregentspark/status/974645778558980096 But in places with criminals being heavily armed, having unarmed police, just makes the police more vulnerable.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  But my thesis is that the criminals are heavily armed because they know that the police are violent. If the police were less violent, the criminals may see less need to arm themselves. In the US a criminal needs to be ready to defend themselves to the death in any interaction with the police. In the UK, they don't.
  - ajsnigrutin 6y ago
    I'm not sure if that's a valid point... i was always under the impression, that most of the violence in "violent cities" is due to violent gang, and that gang members are armed because they have to deal with other criminals/gangs (eg. if you sell drugs, to protect yourself and your drugs from being stolen, or to have "leverage" when racketeering, fighthing for "teritory", etc).
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      So why are police carrying guns outside of these violent cities? Why does a police officer in a nice suburban area who attends things like noisy parties... carry a lethal firearm? That's absolutely crazy to me, and should be to everyone else.
      - ajsnigrutin 6y ago
        Because if something does happen there, they use the gun for their protection. Same as in Germany (where the police is also armed). And pretty much every other country, even very peaceful ones, except probably UK.
        chrisseaton 6y ago
        > Because if something does happen there, they use the gun for their protection. But this is (literally) overkill in my opinion. You could justify a flamethrower by saying 'they'd use it for their protection'. Most community police officers do not need to carry lethal weapons as they do not need that level of protection. They're patrolling communities, not war zones.
GordonS 6y ago
> In the UK you know the police are going to respectfully arrest you and treat you well I agree this will be the case most of the time, but it's worth pointing out this is not always the case. The MET in particular are rather infamous for their level of institutionalised racism, which while undoubtedly better than it used to be, still leaves much to be considered. Anecdotally, I have family members in the police force in London and in Scotland. The ones in London like to regale others with tales of how much they enjoy donning their riot gear and using any excuse to batter people, especially if they are black. The ones in Scotland tell of how prisoners are routinely abused - usually at a "minor" level, such as slapping a prisoner for no reason, but in one indicent a prisoner's head was smashed off a radiator.
- JoeSmithson 6y ago
  > "The ones in London like to regale others with tales of how much they enjoy donning their riot gear and using any excuse to batter people, especially if they are black" If this is true then you need to immediately report it to MPS DPS and IOPC.
  - GordonS 6y ago
    It is true, but I last heard this a few years ago, and have absolutely no evidence. One of them has also since retired from the MET.
    - JoeSmithson 6y ago
      What do you mean you have no evidence? I thought they said this directly to you?
      - GordonS 6y ago
        That would be my word against theirs - that is not evidence that means anything.
        6y ago
DanBC 6y ago
> In the UK you know the police are going to respectfully arrest you and treat you well, UK police are racist and they subject black people to disproportionate use of police powers.
- VBprogrammer 6y ago
  Yes, I think it's important us in the UK not to be too self congratulatory on these issues. The UK have a similar racial skew in the number of people imprisoned from BAME communities compared to their representation in the overall population. The reasons for this are many fold, ranging from poorer opportunities and education to more severe punishments for crimes committed. That said, extrajudicial killings are extraordinarily rare in the UK. I don't think anyone, even someone from those communities, would ever expect to die during an interaction with the police in normal circumstances. While in the US it's becoming clear that there is a real fear of any police interaction being escalated to that point.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    Lethal violence is rarer, because UK police tend not to carry guns and are trained in de-escalation and to only use guns as a last resort. It does happen though, and it disproportionately happens to black people. https://twitter.com/korrinesky/status/1267085008210210816?s=20 https://twitter.com/korrinesky/status/1267085008210210816?s=... Moving away from law enforcement to mental health treatment we see black people are more likely to be detained under the mental health act, spend longer in detention, are more likely to be on CTOs, are more likely to be on forensic sections. In hospital they're more likely to be subjected to seclusion, restraint, and rapid tranquillisation.
throwawayay02 6y ago
> Maybe criminals in the US carry and use guns because they fear violence from the police? Criminals SHOULD fear the police, they are the ones committing crimes in the first place. Jesus Christ what is wrong with people.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > Criminals SHOULD fear the police You've left out a word there, haven't you? 'Violence'. They should fear being arrested with minimum possible force, but they shouldn't fear extrajudicial violence.
  - pyritefan 6y ago
    Police responding to a very real threat to their lives with lethal force (which is the majority of police shootings: police responding to criminals shooting at them) is not extrajudicial violence, it is self defence and protecting citizens. It is not feasible to respond to a lethal threat by a criminal with non-lethal force, lethal force is the minimum possible force to stop the threat.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  > Criminals SHOULD fear the police, they are the ones committing crimes There are crimes and crimes. We are talking here about a man being deliberately, painfully and slowly executed for 9 minutes, in front of a crowd, whereas crying for his life... ...for the crime of trying to scam 20 dollars! Is this the value of your life if you are a jobless black man in US?. $20? Sorry but this is inexcusable
  - pinkfoot 6y ago
    ALLEGEDLY trying to scam $20. Its certainly also never the police's role to decide who is guilty. For all those police knew, at the time of arrest, it was Mr. Floyd who was the victim of a false accusation.
    - pvaldes 6y ago
gadders 6y ago
I would imagine criminals carry guns because it is easier to make their victims hand over their valuables or submit to being raped.
gridlockd 6y ago
> Maybe criminals in the US carry and use guns because they fear violence from the police? Criminals carry guns because other criminals carry guns, and because prospective victims generally do not carry guns. Most criminals are not going to be interested to pull a gun on the police. If they can make the gun disappear when encountering the police, they will. > In the UK you know the police are going to respectfully arrest you and treat you well, so might as well give in rather than escalate it to a firefight. In the UK you also don't face the same penalties. If it's twenty-five to life, people are likely to resist arrest by all means. > But generally I think it's crazy that the police in the US are armed. Most policing doesn't need lethal weaponry, and community officers shouldn't be armed. Leave guns to specialist units when required. Sure, most policing doesn't need arms, but most behavior doesn't need policing either. If you were a police officer, would you, unarmed, engage another person wielding a hatchet? I'd say that's unlikely. Would you even take the job if you were unarmed? Of course that means police kill/injure fewer people, but they also prevent fewer people from killing or injuring others. > I know Floyd wasn't killed with a gun, but I think disarming the police would be the right response and first step towards reducing police violence, as it de-escalates every interaction. It would de-escalate in the sense that there won't be any policing. Officers aren't going to engage a potentially armed criminal with just pepper spray. If you could assume that the person you are trying to arrest most likely does not carry a gun, like in Europe, it would be different. That's just not going to happen in the US.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > If you were a police officer, would you, unarmed, engage another person wielding a hatchet? I'd say that's unlikely. Would you even take the job if you were unarmed? Great example! Here's how the UK engage someone wielding a machete, without guns or any other weapons beside extendable batons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzPj_IaMzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzPj_IaMzY They try to deescalate, they bring in reinforcements, they surround, then they disarm him using shields, not weapons, and he survives to stand a fair trial. No guns needed. And if they thought they couldn't arrest him using shields they could call in a specialist firearms unit, who are specifically trained, authorised, and accountable.

villahousut 6y ago

This is irrelevant. Between US states there is no correlation between violent crime and police shootings: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ckwnky8QQfgBCZ2p2LcwrbslC5yI93fLI_inuCKqmIg/htmlview#gid=343544596 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ckwnky8QQfgBCZ2p2Lcw...