More armed bad guys. Gangs, thugs with guns, etc. I'm liking the Australian model a bit more lately...micromass said:As a European, this makes no sense at all. Here we very rarely have police officers killing civilians. What's the difference?
It's probably due to how many Americans are armed, something police in Europe do not have to deal with.micromass said:As a European, this makes no sense at all. Here we very rarely have police officers killing civilians. What's the difference?
Each year, roughly 117,000 Americans are shot, and nearly one in every three of those shot die. Some Americans have responded to the problem of gun violence by advocating for stricter gun laws, while others have armed themselves. Allegedly, the victims of the recent fatal police shootings in Minnesota and Louisiana each had concealed weapons, presumably for protection.
berkeman said:More armed bad guys. Gangs, thugs with guns, etc. I'm liking the Australian model a bit more lately...
Knife violence is a big problem in England, yet British police have fatally shot only one person wielding a knife since 2008 – a hostage-taker. By comparison, my calculations based on data compiled by fatalencounters.org and the Washington Post show that US police have fatally shot more than 575 people allegedly wielding blades and other such weapons just in the years since 2013.
Evo said:It's probably due to how many Americans are armed, something police in Europe do not have to deal with.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2016/07/17/guns-concealed-weapons-states/86181778/
I have not trained with European LEOs. I have trained with US LEOs. I find this comment hard to believe. Have you trained with European LEOs?micromass said:It appears to me that police officers in the US are trained less well than in Europe
berkeman said:I have not trained with European LEOs. I have trained with US LEOs. I find this comment hard to believe. Have you trained with European LEOs?
Possibly, but when an officer knows that a large percentage of the people they stop could have a gun, even if it turns out to be a knife that they're reaching for, or even if it's nothing, they are conditioned to react as if it may be a gun and the person may intend to use it on them. I don't think police in Europe live with that fear like inner city police here do. I live in a quiet suburb, police are less stressed, so killings are pretty much unheard of.micromass said:That cannot be the only reason. You don't think we have access to deadly weapons here? Sure, I can't buy a semi-automatic weapon in any store here. But criminals who want, can and do still find guns. Also, it's very easy to find knives and other deadly weapons.It appears to me that police officers in the US are trained less well than in Europe and are held to looser standards than here. See the link in my previous post for a reference.
Evo said:Possibly, but when an officer knows that a large percentage of the people they stop could have a gun, even if it turns out to be a knife that they're reaching for, or even if it's nothing, they are conditioned to react as if it may be a gun and the person may intend to use it on them. I don't think police in Europe live with that fear like inner city police here do. I live in a quiet suburb, police are less stressed, so killings are pretty much unheard of.
I don't think that there is any amount of training that can completely override natural survival instinct. I do believe that it's far worse for police in high crime areas, I don't know how bad neighborhoods in Europe compare in gun violence with bad areas in the US, perhaps you do, but at this point I am speculating, so I won't continue.micromass said:Aren't police officers supposed to be well trained so that such conditioning doesn't happen?
You're talking like there are no dangerous neighborhoods in European cities either!
That's a provocative article -- I need to spend more time with it before responding. Thanks micromass.micromass said:No, I haven't. It's always possible the article I cited is wrong though, I would be happy if you would correct it!
Evo said:I don't think that there is any amount of training that can completely override natural survival instinct. I do believe that it's far worse for police in high crime areas, I don't know how bad neighborhoods in Europe compare in gun violence with bad areas in the US, perhaps you do, but at this point I am speculating, so I won't continue.
berkeman said:That's a provocative article -- I need to spend more time with it before responding. Thanks micromass.
This would be due to the fact that most British police do not carry guns.micromass said:I agree that this is a major contributor. But it cannot be all.
Knife violence is a big problem in England, yet British police have fatally shot only one person wielding a knife since 2008 – a hostage-taker. By comparison, my calculations based on data compiled by fatalencounters.org and the Washington Post show that US police have fatally shot more than 575 people allegedly wielding blades and other such weapons just in the years since 2013.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/american-cops-lethal_us_565cde59e4b079b2818b8870
In Northern Ireland, all police officers carry firearms. In the rest of the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers do not carry firearms, that duty is instead carried out by specially-trained firearms officers.
In 2010, following the serious injury of an unarmed officer in a knife attack, the chairman of the Police Memorial Trust,Michael Winner stated that he had put up memorials to 44 officers and that he believed, "It is almost certain that at least 38 of those [Police Officers] would be alive had they been armed".[16] In response, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation Peter Smyth said, "A lot of police officers don't want to be armed. We don't want a call to arms, I don't think that's necessary."[17]
Evo said:This would be due to the fact that most British police do not carry guns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom
I was responding to your statement about British police.micromass said:1) That is not standard for European countries, where the police does carry guns.
2) If the UK can handle the situation without guns, what's so different about the US then? Sure, sure: more dangerous neighborhoods. But why?
Evo said:I was responding to your statement about British police.
You're talking in vague generalities that aren't always true and jumping around a lot. It's a complicated issue, but so far we have the following differences listed, varying from country to country:micromass said:OK, but that misses the point. I can easily find similar statements about other countries, where the police does carry guns. And I'm not really interested in this discussion either. I'm more interested in how to change this dire situation.
russ_watters said:You're talking in vague generalities that aren't always true and jumping around a lot
I need to look more into this article's sources, but this quote struck me:micromass said:
I see two basic problems here in the characterization, plus one actual and one likely legal difference:For example, the unfounded fear of Darren Wilson – the former Ferguson cop who fatally shot Michael Brown – that Brown was armed would not have likely absolved him in Europe...
In Europe, killing is considered unnecessary if alternatives exist. For example, national guidelines in Spain would have prescribed that Wilson incrementally pursue verbal warnings, warning shots, and shots at nonvital parts of the body before resorting to deadly force. Six shots would likely be deemed disproportionate to the threat that Brown, unarmed and wounded, allegedly posed.
No, the problem with jumping around is that things you say may be true for one country but not true for another. For example, you brought up the example of the UK, which has an easy answer - they don't carry guns - but then discarded it because...you didn't like the obvious answer? I'm just asking that you recognize/accept that there is complexity to this issue. Evo's answer was a good one -- a relevant one. It may not be applicable in all countries, but it is applicable in at least one where you thought a comparison with the US relevant. So don't discard it.micromass said:If something I said isn't true, then please tell me.
russ_watters said:No, the problem with jumping around is that things you say may be true for one country but not true for another. For example, you brought up the example of the UK, which has an easy answer - they don't carry guns - but then discarded it because...you didn't like the obvious answer? I'm just asking that you recognize/accept that there is complexity to this issue. Evo's answer was a good one -- a relevant one. It may not be applicable in all countries, but it is applicable in at least one where you thought a comparison with the US relevant. So don't discard it.
You're talking in vague generalities that aren't always true and jumping around a lot
gjonesy said:The answer to that i think is a combination of variables micromass.
I would add to russ's list an extremely high turn over rate. And a very high burn out or comp out rate to boot.
I got injured and spent this last 5 years behind a desk. This year I am being separated do to unavailability because the department can't afford to pay a veteran officer to sit behind a desk and not take on full duties.
Then you get a lot of (rookies) working with less experienced officers. Going into hot areas and that is very contributory to the problem. I was a 15 year vet. Most of the guys in my unit were under 2 years. It takes about 5 years on the force to really qualify as a veteran officer.
micromass said:Why do you think is there a very high turn over and burn out rate?
gjonesy said:Because it is...lol I have been an LEO for over 15 years and have rarely seen an officer make it beyond 2 years. Some people just can't handle the pressure its dangerous and you get treated badly,...add to that a ridiculously low salary,... it is not very much insensitive in staying long.
I stayed because its all i ever wanted to do professionally speaking. Wanted to be a cop since i was a kid.
I agree,,,,they don't. They asked us (the veteran officers) how to better prepare rookies for the job. My suggestion was gun take away and knife take away techniques. It took 2 years to implament that training.micromass said:What do you think about my statement about police officers receiving too little training?
Curious for a comparison, I checked the HR department's website where I used to work. The lowest salary is for students: $11.50/hourPolice Pay Gap: Many of America's Finest Struggle on Poverty Wages
OCT 26 2014
Since then, he’s worked for three different police departments in St. Louis County, all paying between $10.50 and $12.50 an hour.
“This is not what I expected,” said Howard. “I thought being a police officer was a really good job.”
OmCheeto said:I read an interesting article this morning
Curious for a comparison, I checked the HR department's website where I used to work. The lowest salary is for students: $11.50/hour
You really should be interested in hearing all relevant answers. In any case, since it had an obvious answer, I'm curious as to why you brought up England, yet didn't provide the answer yourself?micromass said:Sure, it is an obvious answer. But it didn't really tell me anything new, nor did it tell me anything I'm particularly interested in getting an answer in.
It's one complaint: jumping around means you make a statement/give an example that is true/relevant in one case and not true/relevant in another or vice versa; In the case of England, you heard an answer that was true for that case (a case you raised) but didn't want to accept it so you jump to another where it isn't true.But you said:
You explain the jumping around part, and you're probably right. I still would like to hear about the "aren't always true" part.
While I didn't include it in my list, I did describe the problem and cause and the relationship to training in the last paragraph of post #52.micromass said:Why do you think is there a very high turn over and burn out rate?
The article suggests a fix, but I don't see it very specifically described. Can you paraphrase what the fix is?MarneMath said:
russ_watters said:You really should be interested in hearing all relevant answers. In any case, since it had an obvious answer, I'm curious as to why you brought up England, yet didn't provide the answer yourself?
It's one complaint: jumping around means you make a statement/give an example that is true/relevant in one case and not true/relevant in another or vice versa; In the case of England, you heard an answer that was true for that case (a case you raised) but didn't want to accept it so you jump to another where it isn't true.
All I'm suggesting here is that you should be more open to the complexity of the issue and not be so quick to discard answers you don't like.