US police kill more citizens in 1 month then Brits do in 100+ years

a reply to: zazzafrazz

IF most of the prisons are inhabitated by Gang members, And non gang members become gangmembers in prison. Which basically slaps on a bigger sentence once gang affilication can be properly identified.

I wouldn't call the people going to prison exactly innocient. Sure some people go to prison for *Smoking Pot*

But if they join a gang in prison, they are pretty much setting themselves up for the long haul. Overall increases the number of prisons as gang members are being horded in prisons to prevent them from generating chaos out in public society.

The numbers swell, and prisons become overcrowded.

So what you prepose? Let all the gangbangers out so they can run their tyrany and replace the cops?

the total deaths the cops generate from stupid actions + fighting gangs is of little conciquence compared to the terror, extortion, Corruption. Generated by US organized crime.

And a huge chunk of this anti-police campaign is fueled by organized crime that wants to see the government overthrown so they can establish their own order.

I wouldn't doubt if a good chunk of the anti-establishment in the US have gang affliation and genuine fear of the police which would make more sense considering the rise of gang violence in the United States.

Gang Violence Is on the Rise, Even as Overall Violence Declines

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: zazzafrazz



So what you prepose? Let all the gangbangers out so they can run their tyrany and replace the cops?

No, you made that proposal. never thought such nonsense.

Im not offering any world shattering solutions. Just making an observation which is ok isn't it?

a reply to: Ex_MislTech

It's all about the gun culture in the US. While we frown upon it in Europe...the US is all proud about it. Simplified maybe...but it's the root of the problem. I think it goes back to wild west times...John Wayne and sh**...

a reply to: zazzafrazz


WOO WOO !!!!

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Well if we cant let them out of prison, do we just execute them?

Or just leave the problem unsolved well prisons continue to multipul and become overcrowded?

The reason why prisons are becoming privitized is because no one wants to pay to house criminals.
Since the problem is not getting better. Private organizations are using prisons for slave labour to pay for the housing and make a profit.

So i know what you are saying but we can't just execute them all now can they?

a reply to: AnuTyr

How did you get my proposed solution would start from 'let them all out or start executing them?'

Again, Im not about to offer solutions on this issue it is complex, But I've made an observation, and am entitled to it without having to be the solution provider this very minute on this very day.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

you said prisons are privitized and its some plot by the government to jail US citizens for cash.

The reality of the situation is companies are taking advantage of a problem well only containing it and netting a profit.

It does not solve the gang problem, My point is this has already been debated heavily by those seeking to fix these problems.

I was genuinely curious if you had a method of fixing the issue because if you figured it out it would deserve a noble peace prize.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

I disagree, or the shooting statistics would reflect that in the areas with the greatest concentration of fire arms.

personally I would look at the break up of the family unit, rise in single parent household's as a cause.

To many young men and women are not getting the parental guidance to help them grow up into well adjusted adult.

Least that's my nickels worth.

a reply to: Irishhaf

personally I would look at the break up of the family unit, rise in single parent household's as a cause.

wow...that's a stretch...in my opinion.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Then keep blaming an inanimate object for the bad decisions people make...

That's a stretch for me.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Irishhaf

There's a lot of culture at play here too. UK cops have armed response teams who travel in specialist vehicles where they can store handguns in a lockable centre console. They need to be called and given permission to open fire unless directly under threat or a civilian is directly under threat.

That's smart.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Irishhaf
There are no trigger-happy cowboys discharging weapons and every time a bullet is fired they have an investigation.

Real cowboys aren't trigger happy, quite the opposite actually. I'm getting sick of people who are (literally) oceans away from ever actually meeting a cowboy using it as a slur. Having my specific culture used as a degrading term associated with stupidity and violence eventually gets under even my skin. Nearly everyone where I am from is armed, the cops don't shoot people. We had one shooting from a drug dealer (not a cowboy) passing through and it was the first one in living memory. The cops didn't shoot him, they talked to him for two hours and he turned himself in. Oh, for the record, the cops are cowboys too. You have no idea what you are talking about. (From Montana, kind of an expert in "cowboys" and "cowgirls" for that matter. Derail over)

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Irishhaf
In the majority of cases, UK police have the benefit of time. They can stand back, discuss and weigh up options.

This wouldn't work in the States with an armed populace and where many police are as scared of those they protect as the civilians are of them.

Cultural behavior has a great deal to do with perception and I can see why police in the UK feel that they have less pressure upon them with a (comparatively) disarmed population to deal with. However, just as many people had guns in the U.S. 20, 30, 40 and even 50 years ago (based upon percentages) and we didn't have this level of violence from the police. Going back to perception; we culturally prioritize an armed citizenry differently than in the UK and we always have. The difference in behavior is in the police response, not the gun owning population in the U.S.

originally posted by: AnuTyr
So any bad press for the cops is good new for organized crime, as they keep tabs on police numbers, patrol route ect.
This writer is probably a Mob Shill. And is probably being paid off with drugs. But that's just my oppinion. I'm no cop, just some healthy speculation.

Excuse me but your strawman is showing. Ex_MislTech is no shill, mob or otherwise. You might want to do 2 minutes of research before you start using libel to bolster your pitiful point. And suggesting that he receives payment in drugs is NOT healthy speculation.

I always hear the. ..well, there is always a few bad apples. ...but when you stick your hand in the basket and pull out a bad one so many times it might be time to say , well, there might be a good one in there somewhere. At what point is the basket more rotten than not?

a reply to: JHumm

There's over 800,000 sworn LE personnel in the U.S. You can start saying the basket is more rotten than not when more of that number are conducting unjustified killings than are not.

a reply to: redhorse

'Trigger-happy cowboy' is a well-known figure of speech and probably arose from mid-century Westerns. It wasn't intended to insult real, imaginary or self-professed cowboys. Neither was it intended as a blanket description of all US police officers.

There are examples of some US officers sometimes shooting the wrong person. Sometimes there are reported incidents of some US officers killing suspects in a hail of gunfire. They are the type of officer I described as 'trigger happy.'

Under the UK system, armed response officers are trained to use minimal fire. This means that even if a 'trigger happy' person enters the ranks of armed response, they won't ever have the opportunity of firing multiple rounds. If someone did so they'd possibly be moved elsewhere in the Force.

The difference in behavior is in the police response, not the gun owning population in the U.S.

Is anything ever as simple when it comes to culture? Police response is clearly undergoing a change with the influx of ex-military equipment and that's as big a part of politics as it is market values. That leads to a change in public perception and increased anxieties in some demographics - ATS reflects this.

Some media outlets (news, TV etc) portray groups and areas as hellish dystopias and innately criminal. Some movies celebrate heroic cops shooting numerous 'bad guys' and being 'mavericks.' Does that play a part in the psychology of some officers? Conversely, how much psychological impact can be measured in the minds of those who like seeing cops getting killed in other movies?

I agree with you entirely that culture is key. We probably differ over the details.

a reply to: Kandinsky

I don't care if you think it is ok and you don't "intend" it to be offensive. It is still highly offensive. This particular slur has come to be used to falsely conflate guns and violent, ignorant and even criminal behavior with U.S. culture and it has no basis in truth what-so-ever. You're using it that way and trying to defend that use. Your cognitive dissonance and intentional obtuseness in this is typical of people who use labels that way though so I can't say that I'm surprised.

Besides, this stereotype (using your own "source" of it which I don't necessarily think is all of it) in "westerns" caricatured criminals in that era, which presents an unfair and ignorant bias to the usage of the word in context from the get-go. All the more reason not to use it that way but somehow you think that makes it ok. Taking any word that represents a culture and using to illustrate negative behavior is a derogatory slur and you're clearly ok with that. Culturally, with the use of this word "cowboy" this way you are able to get away with it right now so... you use it, which says a lot more about what's nasty in your character than the character of any cowboy that I know.

a reply to: redhorse

You've chosen to be offended and now you choose to continue to be offended - enjoy yourself. It's no skin off my nose.

The rest of my comments have equally been misinterpreted and you've projected your own anxieties and prejudices upon them - enjoy that too. I stand by my argument that complex culture is behind the OP rather than putting blame entirely on the police.

I've been around ATS for long enough to know there's no point dragging this out with someone who's so obviously argumentative for the sake of it.

Enjoy your day

a reply to: Ex_MislTech

It's the price one pays for having over 300 million weapons in the hands of civilian control. The police are forced into a more liberal rules of engagement as a result.

As the rules become laxer in some states-Kansas just made concealed carry legal without needing a permit- the cops will be required to adopt policy that protects themselves as well as the public. To Wit, put your hands up...and they'd better be empty...

On top of the cultural difference, there is a population difference as well which mitigates a little...

Toss in the increase of mind-altering drugs available out there-legal and illegal-and I'd recommend a career change to anyone 'serving and protecting'....

It has nothing to do with citizens owning guns. Way back when, long time ago, a bigger % of citizens owned guns than today, but cops killing citizens were far less. It has more to do with the militarization of police today, and the fact police academy trains new cops to be judge jury and executioner.

a reply to: DonVoigt

Cause if they are criminals who cares if we kill them right?

People act lIke the UK just doesn't have criminals with that line of thought.