U.S. Police Have Shot Dead 385 People In Five Months

OK. My bad. Even so, it's not a fair comparison because the duty of police is to stop bad guys and killing them is sometimes a necessary part of their job, unless they want to sacrifice themselves and let the next cop handle it.

 

Well, the population of the U.S. is 321,368,864 (July 2015 est.) which means that there are 321,368,479 people in this country the police didn't shoot.

Gee .... I wonder why the police picked on those 385 people out of 321,368,864.

I wonder how many of those killed were peaceful, law-abiding citizens ...

[video=youtube;UsqZaa8nqQU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsqZaa8nqQU[/video]

 

Strange that we have these huge number of "rabid Muslims" and still our country is no where near as violent as yours.

 

I think you need to understand what per capita means. Per head of population statistics have nothing to do with population totals. Oh, and we did grow up; we realised how lethally devastating ownership of handguns can be. Our ban on them followed two appalling massacres committed with legally owned weapons. We decided enough was enough and the ban went through with barely a whimper heard from pro-gun advocates. Perhaps when America grows up you might come to the same conclusion.

 

Um actually you guys safe huge majority white at like 88%, Muslims are 4% of your population.

Your diversity is nowhere near ours so don't act like you are some bastion of diversity.

 

When did the British government ever support the IRA? The mere fact that anyone would pledge funds to buy arms and explosives for terrorists to kill or bomb us with is sickening-even moreso when done by those who claim to be our 'friends'.
I'll bet the smooth-talking NORAID shills convinced the stupid Bostonian plastic Paddies that poor, defenceless Ireland was living under the vicious jackboot of British oppression with starving, barefoot Irish waifs begging for crumbs outside their mud huts...

 

Justifying the killing of people by the cops because they were labeled as criminals is a dangerous one. In our society any one of us could easily be labeled as a criminal for nearly any activity.

Criminal or not we have a standard for punishing them. Cops are there to investigate crimes gather evidence for the state and make arrests. Not to act as executioner. Yes I understand that sometimes an individual will refuse to go quietly and threaten the lives of those sent to arrest them. But lethal force is not justified just because someone does not submit to the will of the state. Just like legal and moral use of force by a civilian there is a standard that must be met. "I thought he was going to pull a weapon" does not fly.

 

I have a problem with using personal statistics in anything like this. 385 people tugs at the heartstrings, but that's among a sample of 300,000,000. I imagine this is why they do it: because people are incapable of visualizing 300 among 300,000,000. The scales mean nothing to them.

So give us some sort of relevant stat, maybe the rate of unjustified shootings among police?

Anyhoo, 380 is a huge number considering that there were 8000 gun homicides generally.

 

Steady Pie. It is nearly impossible to say how many were justified seeings as it is cops that investigate cops. In my town a cop was justified in the negligent death of a woman because he got scared of her dog and slipped in the snow. Yet they have refused to release all the video evidence.

 

So you're now changing the subject. Noted!

BTW 4% is a large amount and yet our country is so much less violent than yours.

And contradicts the pro-gun advocates arguments about gun laws versus violence which they so much love to post

 

Call it improving the gene pool.

 

Exactly. Now what percent of UK citizens gave financial assistance to the IRA versus American CITIZENS?

And what about the British treatment t of IRA captives?

 

Can you cite some instances where someone was shot JUST BECAUSE they were "labeled a criminal"

 

Can you read and comprehend what I actually said?

 

Violent crime is up 27% in the UK and murders in England Wales are up 14%. At what point do you decide enough is enough with knives?

 

I'm not changing the subject , simply pointing out why it is so ridiculous how you want to try and compare us and the UK.

The UK is nowhere near as diverse as the USA, nowhere near the population, cops are not allowed to carry guns in the UK, the UK does not have anyone bordering them, which also they do not have to deal with a country trying to flood them with illegal immigrants coming from a land that is controlled by drug cartels and a seriously corrupt government.

The USA is literally the world rolled into one nation, the UK is far from that.

 

Perhaps you two can argue which other while I get the popcorn?

 

When should deadly force ever be used---by anyone then?

Should a school shooter that breaks a score of laws by bringing guns and homemade bombs to a gun-free school be stopped by shooting him dead before he kills more? Or should police only use tasers and rubber bullets and bean bags and pepper spray to take down a hardcore psychopath?

Don't you think it would be a suicide mission for a cop to use a one shot taser that he must be within 25 feet of a bad guy---instead of a gun?

And what about Islamic terrorists that are flooding into America like those of late in San Bernardino? More the 450 shots were fired between the Muslims and the police before they were put down. How would you you have stopped them?

 

Who is justifying cops killing people who they deem to be criminals? Cops' job is to stop and catch bad guys. If the bad guys don't won't to be caught and are willing to kill someone to avoid our legal system and standards of punishment, then the cops need to stop them with deadly force if necessary. Would you rather not have cops? That's what would happen if cops were outlawed from using deadly force.

 

Cops in this nation are trigger happy fascist lapdogs.

They protect the establishment, and are an unconstitutional, unionized batched of demagogues, perhaps the only unionized charlatans the right wing of this nation defends, and one doesn't need to ask why.

Cops enforce laws but are not required to know them.

Cops protect a constitution they mostly do not understand, and are not required to know.

Cops enforce and support unconstitutional statutes and ordnances. They don't know they're unconstitutional.

All the while, the public at large is told, by a generally older, generally white, and generally male chorus of demagogues to obey their orders or suffer the consequences.

If cops were required to know the laws they uphold, the constitution they take an oath to protect, and the duplicitous nature of local ordnance and statutes, we would not have a problem.

Until they do, we will continue to have a problem.

The state is sanctioning murder by it's agents. The right wing endorses a smaller government campaign. Yet support state sanctioned murder and buggery on a massive scale, proving their hypocrisy.

The state is taking liberty and life into their own hands by creating infallible positions for their agents, and thus, turning clear civil violations into awards for stately abuse.

 

What? We are both stating facts. I am stating the UK can not at all be compared to the USA based on a bunch of issues, while Deckel is merely stating that your crime has gone up.

You obviously have zero argument for both sets of facts so you have no other choice than to do your best to bob and weave and try to push the argument into another direction.

 

Italy got bigger cartels than that, and it aint a 3rd world country. So that makes your argument rather irrelevant.

you might have noticed the UK is just "a bit" smaller and "a bit" less people.
/facepalm

 

Me thinks you're having a comprehension problem too.

If you would read, and I mean really read my post again you would realize that I agree that there is a time when lethal force is not only required but the moral action. But that time is not when lethal force has not been initiated against them. Does this mean that a cop has to wait until they are being fired upon? No. Do they have to wait until a gun is being pointed at them? No. They must however positively identify a threat. Not oh he's reaching for something. Oh he didn't put his hands on his knees and keep his legs straight. Ect adnasume. And when these "professionals" are caught in bad shoots Or improperly use force they are to be held accountable. Right now they more often are not.

I hope that answers both your and Texans questions.

 

So do you think honest adult citizens should be able to carry firearms to protect themselves like the police do, or are police superior beings that are better than the rest?

How many seconds should a cop wait until he open fires on a violent, non-compliant person that reaches for an object in his pants? As a good shot can can draw their weapon and shoot 6 rounds in 2 seconds, how long should cops wait? Should they wait until fired upon or just wait until they see it is deadly weapon? What if the light is low and a cop can hardly see what the black object is being drawn out against verbal commands?

I say, shoot them and live to see another day.

And for the thugs who are too disabled to properly comply to police commands----don't be doing bad things to get stopped in the 1st place.

I'd suggest riding with a cop in the worst part of a nearby area after dark. But as I believe you to be a SJW---that won't happen.

 

I believe in equal rights as well as equal responsibility for all peoples. I also believe that if there is a real instead of a precieved threat, that you have not only a right but a moral obligation to defend your life.

Are you done trying to attack me so we can have a reasonable debate now? Or maybe you want to judge my relaxed stance or grip while the picture was being taken. Note that it was straight and off the trigger and since ya couldn't see it You can assume it was along the slide.