41–50 of 145 posts
some interesting numbers... > This year 46 policemen were shot dead and > the police shot and killed at least 458 people last year 10% or so of death involving police is a policemen. Not that it justify the police force level, but an interesting statistic.
How about also ending grand juries altogether (or at least in cases of potential homicide)? It's obvious that the people on the grand juries are not qualified to asses anything and it's an archaic system not employed by any other country ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury ). In addition, the prosecutors' powers need to be curtailed. Such crimes should always be charged, regardless of what the prosecutor wants.…
It's obvious that the people on the grand juries are not qualified to asses anything and it's an archaic system not employed by any other country This is an odd statement. It's well known that prosecutors have much greater latitude in what they can present as evidence AND the hurdle for proceeding with criminal charges is much lower. The other option is to leave decisions to charge somebody up to the prosecutors them…
One problem among many is that US police are both allowed and trained to use deadly force very quickly, when under any kind of threat. German police will often (successfully!) shoot to disable, not to kill, even when confronted by someone armed with a knife. It's a common American meme that when police fire a gun, the only rational decision is to shoot to kill, but it's just not true.
I had a cousin who retired as an NYPD Patrol Sergeant. He was proud that he had never fired and rarely pulled his pistol over the course of a 40 year career. But he sure as hell cracked his share of bones with a baton.
I've been reading the Economist for 20+ years now and it never ceases to amaze me that while there is some excellent journalism, they really don't get the United States. Statements like "If America did not have 300m guns in circulation, much of this would change." show their bias, rather than having anything to do with the way the US turns everything - drugs, immigration, poverty - into a policing issue infused with…
They qualify the above statement in the prior paragraph: "One reason why so many American police shoot first is that so many American civilians are armed."
Small complaint (about an otherwise very good article): > Eric Garner ... guilty only of selling single cigarettes The cops involved suspected this, but I don't believe it's known that he is guilty of this. Especially in a legal sense: he did not live to see a trial.
That's stupid. We can debate the laws too, but you should be demanding police that enforce the laws with due process and respond to threats proportionally. If you're thinking, "well, once the police suspect someone of violating regulations, of course they're going to kill him" then we're never going to get anywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. Firing a shot in the air is reckless -- the bullet/round comes down with the same speed and momentum as when it was first fired, and it's gotta land somewhere -- and I'd be surprised if that was the standard operating procedure of any law enforcement agency in the world (however my surprise doesn't mean it isn't true). Perhaps you meant they fire a warning shot in the ground, but there is a big difference and that…
> ...the bullet/round comes down with the same speed and momentum as when it was first fired... This would only be true if air resistance wasn't a thing. Physics is against you on this one.
First, police often act with worst case scenarios in mind. That is err on the side of the suspect inflicting immediate harm. Why? Because oftentimes proven offenders actually had arms. Now, the UK, Japan, the police may not be any nicer but they have the privilege of correctly presuming suspects are unarmed.
As Americans i don't think we'll get to a place where arms are well regulated, so I think other options will be necessary. Training in defusing confrontations, perhaps sending in officers in exoskeletons and armor. Something which allows for the suspect to actually intend harm but unable to execute on the officer. That way police don't feel they have to err on the side of safety given the propensity of arms in The US.
The police are trained to neutralize a suspect rather than "wing" them. I think it has to do with how "baddies" can have actual firearms whereas in many other countries firearms are heavily regulated for the general pop.
In any event, the police and the general pop need to be able to feel more at ease with each other otherwise we'll be on our way to judge dredd and that's not a good path.
Yesterday, I was pulled over for not buckling my seatbelt until 2 blocks after pulling out of a parking spot. Turns out I had an unresolved fix-it ticket from 2013 which caused my license to be suspended (had no idea). CHP officer accused me of lying to him (I wasn't) and immediately impounded my car. Getting my car back took visits from 4 places (court, dmv, CHP office, tow yard) with fees at every turn.
I can't imagine how bad it is for people living in larger cities.
How about also ending grand juries altogether (or at least in cases of potential homicide)? It's obvious that the people on the grand juries are not qualified to asses anything and it's an archaic system not employed by any other country ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury ). In addition, the prosecutors' powers need to be curtailed. Such crimes should always be charged, regardless of what the prosecutor wants.…
It's obvious that the people on the grand juries are not qualified to asses anything and it's an archaic system not employed by any other country This is an odd statement. It's well known that prosecutors have much greater latitude in what they can present as evidence AND the hurdle for proceeding with criminal charges is much lower. The other option is to leave decisions to charge somebody up to the prosecutors them…
The decision to charge essentially is up to the prosecutor; the grand jury process for felonies essentially plays an analogous role to the preliminary hearing for misdemeanors, in that it establishes probable cause and allows the case to continue. The difference is that, while felonies are notionally more serious crimes with more at risk, defendants actually have the right to be represented at present evidence at preliminary hearings, while they are entitled to neither for grand jury proceedings. (And that preliminary hearings are before a judge, rather than a grand jury.)
So, the alternative to grand juries doesn't give prosecutors more power, it gives them less. But it still doesn't reduce their ability to refrain prosecuting offenses. You can't do that unless you do something like allow court-appointed independent prosecutors on a citizen complaint with sufficient evidence where the public prosecutor declines to prosecute.