Protect and Serve . . . yeah right !

[Freakbro]

If you killed someone, which they did, why would that be a reason for not getting a fair trial ? Have you been at the vodka again ?

I think the point he is making is currently they "allegedly" murdered someone (as killing someone is not necessarily illegal) they haven't been tried or found guilty of anything yet.

So to frame it in language that infers automatic guilt would indicate the lack of any fair due process.

 

[Sliver]

I think the point he is making is currently they "allegedly" murdered someone (as killing someone is not necessarily illegal) they haven't been tried or found guilty of anything yet.

So to frame it in language that infers automatic guilt would indicate the lack of any fair due process.

I guess they are now at the mercy of a jury of their peers. Three thing trouble me about this case which does imply that at the least, a manslaughter charge should stick for some of these officers.

1.He appears to have been illegally arrested as he hadn't done anything wrong.

2.The violent way he was subdued and cuffed, which led to his injury, which led to his death.

3.His repeated calls for a medic were repeatedly denied, till in the end when he was taken to hospital, it was too late. Also, another point is that he was not strapped in correctly in the police van. He should have been in the correct restraints, to protect him had the van been in an accident.

 

[thep02]

The spine injuries which killed Gray were clearly caused inside the van while he was being driven to the station not in the street arrest, a beating in the van is common over there iirc it's called a dime ride.

 

[Sliver]

The spine injuries which killed Gray were clearly caused inside the van while he was being driven to the station not in the street arrest, a beating in the van is common over there iirc it's called a dime ride.

Yes. You're right.

 

[dowie]

I don't like the comparisons to other cases in some parts of the media - in this case the person in question genuinely didn't do anything....

the US police do seem to have a cultural problem though, they are way too quick to use force

 

[lixxus]

And that, right there, is why they'll never get a fair trial....

care to Elaborate. I reiterated "young man" because the other member made an issue of him being black. The issue here is police brutality. The statistics show whites in america die more from brutality than any other ethnic minority.

So as I will say again the issue is "police brutality"

 

[thep02]

I don't like the comparisons to other cases in some parts of the media - in this case the person in question genuinely didn't do anything....

the US police do seem to have a cultural problem though, they are way too quick to use force

Did you read the fact that they killed more people this March than UK police have killed since 1900?

Or that they kill more whites than blacks?

A bit more than a culture problem me thinks.

 

[Sliver]

A bit more than a culture problem me thinks.

It is culture though. It boils down to the Second Amendment Right To Bear Arms. If the population didn't have 300 million guns between them and were unarmed like we are in the UK, the Police wouldn't be so trigger happy. America is a gun obsessed culture. They have a sado-masochistic attachment to firearms. It doesn't matter how many school shootings happen or how many Police kill unarmed people, they just won't give up their guns.

 

[thep02]

It's not about guns US cops have a safe job, it's about the moral majority putting up with rising police brutality over the last 30 years and local authorities using cops to raise revenue by issuing fines and other levies and the forfeiture of assets brought in as part of the sounds good to right wing voters war on drugs, coupled with loads of ex military combat vets flooding in to the police force with regimental loyalty and a penchant for violence.

 

[Sliver]

It's not about guns US cops have a safe job

Sorry but it is about guns.

In the UK, 65 million people, there are roughly 70 gun related deaths per year. In the US, 315 million people, there are roughly 30,000 gun related deaths per year. Around 12,000 of those are Police shootings. Cases like the one in Baltimore may not involve guns, but they are a small percentage of deaths compared to gun related deaths.

 

[TheVoice]

It is culture though. It boils down to the Second Amendment Right To Bear Arms. If the population didn't have 300 million guns between them and were unarmed like we are in the UK, the Police wouldn't be so trigger happy. America is a gun obsessed culture. They have a sado-masochistic attachment to firearms. It doesn't matter how many school shootings happen or how many Police kill unarmed people, they just won't give up their guns.

Most cultures won't just "give up" something they've been accustomed to for centuries. Expecting change on that level is unrealistic and unreasonable.

There's more to it than just guns anyway, plenty of other countries allow citizens to possess firearms yet have far lower rates of gun crime.

 

[thep02]

Sorry but it is about guns.

In the UK, 65 million people, there are roughly 70 gun related deaths per year. In the US, 315 million people, there are roughly 30,000 gun related deaths per year. Around 12,000 of those are Police shootings. Cases like the one in Baltimore may not involve guns, but they are a small percentage of deaths compared to gun related deaths.

Until 1923 we had the same gun laws effectively and up until Hungerford and Dunblane we had relatively easy gun laws, Canada have roughly the same gun ownership figures as do many other countries either by law or tradition, it really is just a thirty year old tough on crime and raise revenue campaigne initiated by Reagan and greedily monetised by Clinton.

 

[Sliver]

Most cultures won't just "give up" something they've been accustomed to for centuries. Expecting change on that level is unrealistic and unreasonable.

There's more to it than just guns anyway, plenty of other countries allow citizens to possess firearms yet have far lower rates of gun crime.

Indeed. Hence why I say it's a cultural problem for America. Guns are the main problem. I've used weapons myself in the armed forces so I know what having a loaded weapon does to some people.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Indeed. Hence why I say it's a cultural problem for America. Guns are the main problem. I've used weapons myself in the armed forces so I know what having a loaded weapon does to some people.

One of the primary reasons that the US is so protective around firearms is that they feel they need it to protect "freedom" - primarily from the government. When the government is your enemy for which you need lethal weapons to keep control - and Police Officers are agents of the state, you can see why there may be conflict.

 

[dowie]

Did you read the fact that they killed more people this March than UK police have killed since 1900?

Or that they kill more whites than blacks?

A bit more than a culture problem me thinks.

you don't think there is a cultural problem with the US police

those killings would seem to support the idea that there very likely is

or are you just being silly re: semantics and don't feel 'cultural problem' is strong enough language?

 

[dowie]

One of the primary reasons that the US is so protective around firearms is that they feel they need it to protect "freedom" - primarily from the government.

lol yeah very valuable freedom... I mean just think if they haven't revolted they might have turned out like their neighbour to the north, in fact they might well have ended up being part of the same, much larger, country.... only with free healthcare a bit less inequality and similar levels of 'freedom' and democracy that they enjoy already...

 

[Rroff]

One of the primary reasons that the US is so protective around firearms is that they feel they need it to protect "freedom" - primarily from the government. When the government is your enemy for which you need lethal weapons to keep control - and Police Officers are agents of the state, you can see why there may be conflict.

Indeed they see any degree of restriction as an inroad on their rights hence there is some really stupid situations where people who everybody knows shouldn't have access to a firearm legally has access and in any other country wouldn't - its definitely not so much about the proliferation.

Its really hard to show it from the US citizen's perspective unless you've lived out there but their attitude/mental approach to it is pretty much alien to what anyone who has lived entirely in this country could imagine - they've grown up with it, there is a degree of awareness and responsibility to it ingrained in many gun owners that I can't even begin to explain.

 

[Sliver]

One of the primary reasons that the US is so protective around firearms is that they feel they need it to protect "freedom" - primarily from the government. When the government is your enemy for which you need lethal weapons to keep control - and Police Officers are agents of the state, you can see why there may be conflict.

The US government has by far the largest armed military force on Earth. They have nukes. The most advanced and capable Air Force, Navy and Army ever seen. They spend more on defence every year than the next 10 nations combined. Given these facts, what use is allowing every citizen to own a hand gun in order to defend themselves against the government ?

When the second amendment was implemented it made sense at that time. In today's world, it makes no sense and simply means that 30,000 people die every single year, needlessly.

The American government is not the enemy of it's own people. That's a stupid conspiracy theory argument.

 

[Washout]

Don't really know much of American history and it's political system so I may be off the mark here but I have to laugh at the irony of how adverse some of them can be to changes in the constitution. Specifically the parts of it called amendments.

 

[thep02]

The US government has by far the largest armed military force on Earth. They have nukes. The most advanced and capable Air Force, Navy and Army ever seen. They spend more on defence every year than the next 10 nations combined. Given these facts, what use is allowing every citizen to own a hand gun in order to defend themselves against the government ?

When the second amendment was implemented it made sense at that time. In today's world, it makes no sense and simply means that 30,000 people die every single year, needlessly.

The American government is not the enemy of it's own people. That's a stupid conspiracy theory argument.

They've got a lot of kit but they're not very good a winning so I think the people would win presuming the tyrant doesn't use nukes on their own country.