4 ms·

I agree with the overall point of the article, but one nit is that it isn't great to cite Michael Brown's shooting as evidence of police racism. There is eviden

I agree with the overall point of the article, but one nit is that it isn't great to cite Michael Brown's shooting as evidence of police racism. There is evidence (witness accounts consistent with physical evidence) to back up the officer's claims. Citing that only weakens your case. The other examples are valid, though.

enraged_camel 11y ago
Your comment is very strange to me. So, in your opinion, a point that would otherwise be valid becomes not valid if the author does not cite the best example for it?
- ams6110 11y ago
  He said using a weak example weakens the point.
  - dominotw 11y ago
    I remember sitting in 3 different queues to see a doctor for a (semi) emergency at a NHS hospital.
Zigurd 11y ago
Many police shootings are "justified" by US standards, which are much lower than they are in some other places. You don't get to the low number of police shootings in the UK, Germany, etc. using US standards. In other words we have both a specific individual problem of racism, and a systemic problem that tells cops to shoot.
- bruceb 11y ago
  Are lots of bad cops not fired, absolutely. But of course UK and Germany don't have millions of handguns laying around like the US does. The number of UK police killed in over 100 years fits on to a wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officer... There are considerably more US cops killed.
  - Zigurd 11y ago
    While I agree it is too easy to get a handgun, cop deaths could also have to do with aggressive tactics that escalate situations into shooting incidents.
- ams6110 11y ago
  Perhaps another explanation for a disparity of police shootings in the US vs. UK is that US police are confronted with armed and/or aggressive criminals more often. Are you familiar with US and UK law enforcement standards on use of deadly force? I rather doubt they are significantly different.
  - UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
    > Perhaps another explanation for a disparity of police shootings in the US vs. UK is that US police are confronted with armed and/or aggressive criminals more often. Even if you ONLY count the number of police shootings in the US which involved shooting unarmed individuals it would be higher than all of the UK's shootings put together. > I rather doubt they are significantly looser than those in any other western nation. You'd be entirely wrong. US police can get away with shooting people if they feel a "threat" which is entirely not the standard used elsewhere. Other places it isn't about a police officer's fear that determines the legality of firing, it is the actual factual threat the officer faced. For example if someone fishes around in their pockets, if that person was shot that officer would be considered justified and they would not only not go to jail but keep their job. In the UK that police officer would definitely lose their job and MIGHT go to jail. Everyone loves to point out the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting [0]. And as messed up as that was, that was a national scandal, there was two investigations, supposedly changes were made, but what is interesting is that those types of "incidents" happen it seems on a weekly basis in the US and nothing ever seems to happen and there is very little outcry about it. Just this week a US police officer shot an unarmed escape convict in the back as they were running away. Nobody is even defending this as the default assumption is that that officer was justified. That is the new normal in the US. Shooting unarmed people in the back... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menez...
    - ams6110 11y ago
      (Note I edited my statement while you were writing your response, what you quoted was my original) Your description of standards doesn't mesh very well with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force#United_States_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force#United_States_law In particular: The Tennessee v. Garner ruling in 1985 in which the U.S. Supreme Court [...] abolished the Fleeing felon rule where a fleeing felon who posed no immediate threat to society (e.g., a burglar) could be shot if he/she refused to halt. Also: In the 1989 Graham v. Connor ruling, the Supreme Court expanded its definition to include "objective reasonableness" standard—not subjective as to what the officer's intent might have been—and it must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene So it isn't just the subjective sense of fear an officer may feel. The US is a big place. It's possible to find a few incidents where an officer didn't live up to standards and training and try to make it seem like it's a bigger problem than it is, if that's your agenda. Certainly shooting fleeing people in the back is not "the new normal" in any way that I can see.

enraged_camel 11y ago

Your comment is very strange to me. So, in your opinion, a point that would otherwise be valid becomes not valid if the author does not cite the best example for it?

ams6110 11y ago
He said using a weak example weakens the point.
- dominotw 11y ago
  I remember sitting in 3 different queues to see a doctor for a (semi) emergency at a NHS hospital.

Zigurd 11y ago

Many police shootings are "justified" by US standards, which are much lower than they are in some other places. You don't get to the low number of police shootings in the UK, Germany, etc. using US standards. In other words we have both a specific individual problem of racism, and a systemic problem that tells cops to shoot.

bruceb 11y ago
Are lots of bad cops not fired, absolutely. But of course UK and Germany don't have millions of handguns laying around like the US does. The number of UK police killed in over 100 years fits on to a wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officer... There are considerably more US cops killed.
- Zigurd 11y ago
  While I agree it is too easy to get a handgun, cop deaths could also have to do with aggressive tactics that escalate situations into shooting incidents.
ams6110 11y ago
Perhaps another explanation for a disparity of police shootings in the US vs. UK is that US police are confronted with armed and/or aggressive criminals more often. Are you familiar with US and UK law enforcement standards on use of deadly force? I rather doubt they are significantly different.
- UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
  > Perhaps another explanation for a disparity of police shootings in the US vs. UK is that US police are confronted with armed and/or aggressive criminals more often. Even if you ONLY count the number of police shootings in the US which involved shooting unarmed individuals it would be higher than all of the UK's shootings put together. > I rather doubt they are significantly looser than those in any other western nation. You'd be entirely wrong. US police can get away with shooting people if they feel a "threat" which is entirely not the standard used elsewhere. Other places it isn't about a police officer's fear that determines the legality of firing, it is the actual factual threat the officer faced. For example if someone fishes around in their pockets, if that person was shot that officer would be considered justified and they would not only not go to jail but keep their job. In the UK that police officer would definitely lose their job and MIGHT go to jail. Everyone loves to point out the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting [0]. And as messed up as that was, that was a national scandal, there was two investigations, supposedly changes were made, but what is interesting is that those types of "incidents" happen it seems on a weekly basis in the US and nothing ever seems to happen and there is very little outcry about it. Just this week a US police officer shot an unarmed escape convict in the back as they were running away. Nobody is even defending this as the default assumption is that that officer was justified. That is the new normal in the US. Shooting unarmed people in the back... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menez...
  - ams6110 11y ago
    (Note I edited my statement while you were writing your response, what you quoted was my original) Your description of standards doesn't mesh very well with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force#United_States_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadly_force#United_States_law In particular: The Tennessee v. Garner ruling in 1985 in which the U.S. Supreme Court [...] abolished the Fleeing felon rule where a fleeing felon who posed no immediate threat to society (e.g., a burglar) could be shot if he/she refused to halt. Also: In the 1989 Graham v. Connor ruling, the Supreme Court expanded its definition to include "objective reasonableness" standard—not subjective as to what the officer's intent might have been—and it must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene So it isn't just the subjective sense of fear an officer may feel. The US is a big place. It's possible to find a few incidents where an officer didn't live up to standards and training and try to make it seem like it's a bigger problem than it is, if that's your agenda. Certainly shooting fleeing people in the back is not "the new normal" in any way that I can see.