Why is America the only developed country whose police don't know how to detain unarmed people without killing them? (health care, Obama)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I assume police in other countries have families that they want to return to also. So what is it about American police that they can't do what the police in the rest of the world do?
In every news video where a black is shot during a police pursuit the black was resisting arrest by trying to run or threatening the police persons with a weapon. Only one incident did I see an innocent black person shot by a police person.
Blacks could definitely decrease the shooting incidents upon themselves if they simply followed the orders of the police. It would also help their cause if they stopped carrying weapons. Not to mention not committing crimes.
After the NFL players disrespected America in their protest against police I suggest that cities with large black populations create a "no police area" with borders to be defined by the residents themselves. This would give the blacks what they want and save the cities a boatload of money.
Would you say the same to whites? Either blacks have their 2nd Amendment rights just like whites have or no one has them - you can't have one law for blacks and a different one for whites.
Would you say the same to whites? Either blacks have their 2nd Amendment rights just like whites have or no one has them - you can't have one law for blacks and a different one for whites.
I will mention what I think. Until someone can prove me wrong, this is where I stand. I don't think said person would have said the same for Whites. I responded to said person's post, and brought up that everyone has the right to legally carry a weapon. In my judgment, said person is asking Black people to relinquish their right to carry a weapon to put everyone else at ease. Basically, the attitude is that Black people should voluntarily submit to a semi-dictatorship. This is nothing new. There has always been a fear of Black people, especially men, exercising the right to have a gun on them. That fear goes back to the days of slavery.
I will mention what I think. Until someone can prove me wrong, this is where I stand. I don't think said person would have said the same for Whites. I responded to said person's post, and brought up that everyone has the right to legally carry a weapon. In my judgment, said person is asking Black people to relinquish their right to carry a weapon to put everyone else at ease. Basically, the attitude is that Black people should voluntarily submit to a semi-dictatorship. This is nothing new. There has always been a fear of Black people, especially men, exercising the right to have a gun on them. That fear goes back to the days of slavery.
Either all of us are free, or none of are.
A few addressed that post with no reply. Far more simply allowed it to stand as it was.
A few addressed that post with no reply. Far more simply allowed it to stand as it was.
And it's not like said person is suddenly not posting for days. Said person is ignoring the replies. This is a sign of cowardice. Someone could say "he/she doesn't have to answer". It's not about "he/she doesn't have to". It is about "he/she doesn't want to answer". Too much fear in answering.
For decades, it was over 50% of Americans legally owned firearms. Now that number is down to ~35%.
But when you then consider that 27% are under 21, 6% are felons, 3% are incarcerated or on probation (not including parole since those people should already be felons), that also means that of Americans who can legally own firearms, still more than 1 in 2 own firearms.
That's not everyone, but that is really really high odds in every encounter.
And it's not like said person is suddenly not posting for days. Said person is ignoring the replies. This is a sign of cowardice. Someone could say "he/she doesn't have to answer". It's not about "he/she doesn't have to". It is about "he/she doesn't want to answer". Too much fear in answering.
For decades, it was over 50% of Americans legally owned firearms. Now that number is down to ~35%.
But when you then consider that 27% are under 21, 6% are felons, 3% are incarcerated or on probation (not including parole since those people should already be felons), that also means that of Americans who can legally own firearms, still more than 1 in 2 own firearms.
That's not everyone, but that is really really high odds in every encounter.
Your numbers don't add up. I have no desire to see it explained.
I've said in the past that if the answer is better training and better pay, I'm open to that as long as it comes with more responsibility for their actions.
Trivial answer: Paperwork. A German police officer will need to justify, in writing, why he felt it necessary to draw a weapon, let alone fire it. Which us probably why German police fires less than 100 bullets per year. (No, not per officer. And it's not a count of episodes with firearms, either. Less than 100 bullets Total. Per year. For the country. Some years it's in the thirties.)
Police everywhere hate paperwork.
The mostly unarmed UK police trains and trains and trains how to deescalate. They'll happily engage in a bit of give-and-take instead of insisting on being the unquestionsble authority. And while that sounds weird to the more macho US police forces, it works. (Armed UK police is scary well-trained. It's a prestigious podying, and very hard to qualify for. Expert marksmanship is the easy part.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.