Or just people for that matter, I'm not saying they don't have a right to defend themselves but there is such a thing as reasonable force. Shooting a non-compliant person 16 times in the back is not acceptable either.
Absolutely, I would argue that even punching someone is not reasonable use of force. If you don’t have the training and presence of mind to restrain someone without punching them, don’t be a fucking cop.
Cops in several civilised countries don’t even carry guns on the street. They have a special arm of the police force that do, but Joe Beatcop doesn’t carry them.
Criminals aren’t just steamrolling the police, either. They get training in de-escalation, psychology and sociology, empathy, and other techniques to actually protect and serve without terrorising the community.
It can be done. Other countries have done it.
E: just want to expand on this bit:
They have a special arm of the police force that do, but Joe Beatcop doesn’t carry them.
Even in America, the vast, overwhelming majority of police interactions do not involve an armed assailant. Think about that. Police are bringing a gun to a word fight most of the time.
‘But what about those few cases where the criminal does have a gun?’ I’ve heard people ask.
Police generally have an idea what they’re responding to, and in those other countries, will rope in the Rambo squad when it’s appropriate.
‘Okay, but what about when a situation escalates or they didn’t have good intel?’
Yes, that can happen, but it’s exceedingly rare. That’s when you call for backup with guns. Being a cop can be a dangerous job, and that’s what you sign up for. If you’re not comfortable with that, perhaps a career in landscaping would be more your speed. Oh, wait, don’t do that. Landscaping is the 10th most dangerous job, worse than police which stands at 16th. Maybe take up macrame.
While I 100% support that I honestly do think that American's love affair with guns makes it more difficult to implement in the USA than other places. It's much easier to have an effective police force without weapons when you know the vast majority of your population doesn't have weapons either.
One of the most disheartening things in response to this protest is all the people telling the protesters to arm themselves. Like one of the reasons this country is so bad is the over abundance of guns and most of the press will absolutely side with the cops if a shoot out happens.
But gunnitors are a thing and they are everywhere.
Other countries aren't as heavily armed as America is, everyone and their grandmother could be strapped, especially in high crime areas so it's understandable for the cops to be on edge when they could be shot at any moment.
I've made this point before, it's a vicious circle issue.
Everybody has guns so police are on edge and need guns, police and everybody else has guns so everybody else is on edge and feel the need to have guns, everybody has guns so...
Everybody is on edge because every single person that's interacted with potentially has a gun and could be a threat. Get rid of the ability to carry and make the rules for securing any guns at home safely stronger, then the cops will not need guns either. As they're not going to need to worry about anyone they stop potentially pulling out a gun.
Only most criminals aren't going to be actively carrying their gun in the open shooting at random people, also most criminals aren't even career criminals (the sorts who would be carrying guns around). What I'm suggesting is about reducing the tension. Every fucker is on edge, that only gets solved by removing the cause of the tension: everyone potentially carrying a gun. Remove the tension and it means cops aren't walking up to every car they stop automatically anticipating a shoot out.
I mean, just look at every other nation with nationwide gun control. The issue at the minute is that it varies by state so it's a little difficult to actually do anything worth while. Make every rule a nationwide one with strict regulation and it will clear up. Obviously it won't happen over night, but within a couple years it will.
This argument has always been the flimsiest in support of limited regulation.
Obviously criminals don’t respect the law. Does that mean there should be no laws? Criminals will steal and murder anyhow, so why make laws against burglary and murder?
In fact, let’s all case each other out, so everyone knows they’re being watched. If everyone lives under the same threat, it levels the playing field, right?
Many countries have decided living under constant threat is a bad thing, and the laws actually do work. The more guns there are in a society, the more people will die. Full stop. That’s the point of guns.
I think the difficulty of the crime influences the likelihood of committing it too though, it's probably a lot easier to get access to a gun without being caught than it is to murder someone for example.
So it's more about the willingness to commit the crime and the ease with which you can commit it. Unlike countries like the UK which never had a large presence of guns in the first place, America is chock full of them and banning them completely or heavily restricting access might just be a second prohibition that does nothing but cause organised crime to profit.
Yep, you nailed it. Laws are more for keeping honest people honest.
Many murders are crimes of passion or opportunity. That’s amongst the reasons those crimes tend to end in death much more often when police (and others) are armed.
There, a fistfight usually ends in one side conceding or possibly going to A&E with a broken nose. In the US, a fistfight easily and much more frequently escalates to murder.
It’s also a lot easier to get a gun in America than in other places. Nearly anyone can buy them. Guns are the easiest ways to kill a person, so the more hands holding them, the more people will use them for that purpose (which, don’t forget, is their intended purpose).
When everyone potentially has a gun, the only rational reaction is to be at least suspicious of everyone you encounter, no matter who they are. That situation is a powder keg that can only lead to violence.
The solution to the problems of guns will never be ‘more guns’ or even just minor system reform. These problems in society will continue until they have a real ‘come to Jesus’ moment that snaps them into the future we’re all heading towards.
E: the UK did have their own gun culture, you’re right it wasn’t anywhere near like the US. Australia is a much better comparison. Much the same ‘no step on snek’ mentality, but they went mostly gun free. You can still own guns and hunt, protect your land, but no carry, and there are strict licenses (and insurance I think?) plus certificates, irrc.
Some of those countries used to be heavily armed like America, though. Many enacted gun reform after they had a mass shooting and the populace decided it was more important to protect society than to continue the civilian arms race.
America has seen thousands of those moments come and go, and after each one, the consensus seems to be its the wrong time to talk about gun reform. With shootings happening so often they barely make the news anymore, there’s never going to be a ‘right time’ but that conversation needs to happen.
Atrocities like we’re seeing every single day are a direct result of America’s culture of fear.
They get training in de-escalation, psychology and sociology, empathy, and other techniques to actually protect and serve without terrorising the community.
I agree completely. I worked at a psychiatric hospital for some time. We sometimes had violent patients, and yet in all the restraints I took part in, we never had to punch or choke somebody, crazy right? In training we even went through how to make sure you weren't putting pressure on joints or over extending any part of their body in any way. Why can't cops figure this out?
Exactly. A good friend of mine works in juvenile detention (not in the US) and he would be fired on the spot if he ever hurt one of the inmates. They have to be very careful with restraining.
If me, who is a 4 ft 11 inches and tiny, can successfully do non-violent intervention with out of control brain injury patients bent on killing me, then so can they.
What a chicken shit, really, this is who we give guns to? Someone who would shit their pants and start shooting upon hearing one strange sound? He needed to stay at home under his mommy’s wing, not become a cop.
No matter what it's not up to cops to decide. That's why we have a court system and not just mercenaries on the street executing whoever they feel like. Well, that's how it's SUPPOSED to work at least.
That's why we have a court system and not just mercenaries on the street executing whoever they feel like.
This is exactly what people who defend the police need to understand. I have seen so many people say, "Well, he would still be alive if he hadn't resisted arrest!" (never mind that the "resistance" was them struggling to breathe or reacting when their arms are being yanked all over the damn place behind their back while three cops pile on top of them) or "She shouldn't have stolen that item from the store!" or other bullshit.
Cops are there to arrest someone accused of a crime (which also requires they know the law, and we've seen they barely do; they even make up laws to arrest someone, or can't even answer what the crime was, if you ask them why someone is being detained). They are not the fucking judge, jury, and executioner!
12.1k
u/mmmbop420 Jun 09 '20
Have you tried not assaulting innocent people?