Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kanluwen wrote:
There really is a series of simple fixes to this.

Stop letting police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents. There needs to be penalties for juries or jurors who come back with nonsense verdicts like we've seen recently. I don't know what the penalties should be or how they should be penalized, but there is a very real issue with this and it needs to be addressed.

So the jury should return the right verdict or go to jail? That seems a very unusual legal jeopardy to assign to anyone serving jury. At that point why run the expense of having a trial if either the accused or jury will suffer legal sanctions?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Stop letting police officers be able to turn off their body cameras or dashboard cameras. The second those cameras go off, if anything happens while they're on duty? Fired and immediately put into county jail. No charges, no nothing. Just jailed for the same amount of time as a civilian would get for whatever crime that might have possibly been committed

I agree with the termination of their employment based on gross misconduct. The loss of liberty is wholly at odds with the protections afforded citizens under the Constitution.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Stop hiring persons who have no business handling t-shirt cannons, let alone actual firearms

Agreed. Do you feel that the current screening is inadequate, and if so what specific improvements are you suggesting?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Start weeding out officers with excessive "sketchy" situations in their files.

This sounds like a smoke without fire test. However if you mean that when an officer has a history of excessive force, or other serious, complaints being upheld against them then I agree.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm advocating for police to be actually held accountable for their actions.

I want to live in that world. I really do.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I used to think body cameras were a very viable solution to the problem of police brutality, but I don't think so anymore. After all, there was no shortage of footage of cops executing a man for selling loose cigarettes.

The real problem is that culturally, juries give a crazy amount of deference to police - maybe too much. I understand that cops have to make split-second decisions and that monday morning quarterbacking seems unreasonable, but I also think ti's become readily apparent that police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents that a non-LEO with a CCW would clearly go to jail for. This needs to end at the prosecutors office and the jury box, and isn't a technological fix.

I don't there is ever a simple fix to something as complex as this, especially when there is a a subjective element as to whether the LEO felt that their life was at risk. Body cameras are just another layer of accountability. But if they are not recording and a Prosecutor does not want to peruse the matter their merits are largely academic.

There really is a series of simple fixes to this.

Stop letting police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents. There needs to be penalties for juries or jurors who come back with nonsense verdicts like we've seen recently. I don't know what the penalties should be or how they should be penalized, but there is a very real issue with this and it needs to be addressed.

No. No. No. Juries are allowed to come up with a not guilty verdict for whatever reason they want and that is a good thing. Yes, guilty people will go free, but I'd rather 100 guilty go free than one innocent be punished.

Stop letting police officers be able to turn off their body cameras or dashboard cameras. The second those cameras go off, if anything happens while they're on duty? Fired and immediately put into county jail. No charges, no nothing. Just jailed for the same amount of time as a civilian would get for whatever crime that might have possibly been committed

Fired...Sure. However, no one goes to jail without charges and a trial. The evidence might be cut and dry, but prove that in a court of law.

 skyth wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I used to think body cameras were a very viable solution to the problem of police brutality, but I don't think so anymore. After all, there was no shortage of footage of cops executing a man for selling loose cigarettes.

The real problem is that culturally, juries give a crazy amount of deference to police - maybe too much. I understand that cops have to make split-second decisions and that monday morning quarterbacking seems unreasonable, but I also think ti's become readily apparent that police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents that a non-LEO with a CCW would clearly go to jail for. This needs to end at the prosecutors office and the jury box, and isn't a technological fix.

I don't there is ever a simple fix to something as complex as this, especially when there is a a subjective element as to whether the LEO felt that their life was at risk. Body cameras are just another layer of accountability. But if they are not recording and a Prosecutor does not want to peruse the matter their merits are largely academic.

There really is a series of simple fixes to this.

Stop letting police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents. There needs to be penalties for juries or jurors who come back with nonsense verdicts like we've seen recently. I don't know what the penalties should be or how they should be penalized, but there is a very real issue with this and it needs to be addressed.

No. No. No. Juries are allowed to come up with a not guilty verdict for whatever reason they want and that is a good thing. Yes, guilty people will go free, but I'd rather 100 guilty go free than one innocent be punished.

No, they're not. Juries are supposed to look at the evidence and render a verdict based upon that.

That is NOT what happens. Ever served on a jury, even in a fairly high profile case? Because there are people serving on juries right now who have no business tying shoe laces for a living let alone deciding someone's fate.

Stop letting police officers be able to turn off their body cameras or dashboard cameras. The second those cameras go off, if anything happens while they're on duty? Fired and immediately put into county jail. No charges, no nothing. Just jailed for the same amount of time as a civilian would get for whatever crime that might have possibly been committed

Fired...Sure. However, no one goes to jail without charges and a trial. The evidence might be cut and dry, but prove that in a court of law.

Nope. Straight to county jail.

They agree to be LEOs. Nobody forced them to do it.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


We also prioritize candidates with military training for police recruitment over civilians which seems wrong headed to me while also outfitting our police with surplus military equipment and wonder why we have the violence.

Are former military police officers actually killing people at a disproportionate rate?

 Kanluwen wrote:

No, they're not. Juries are supposed to look at the evidence and render a verdict based upon that.

That is NOT what happens. Ever served on a jury, even in a fairly high profile case? Because there are people serving on juries right now who have no business tying shoe laces for a living let alone deciding someone's fate.

I am not okay with penalizing a jury unless proof of malfeasance could be demonstrated, but I do think our jury pool could use some revamping. Making it less of a financial burden to serve would be one change I'd suggest. Having all employers offer paid leave for jury duty would be great.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


We also prioritize candidates with military training for police recruitment over civilians which seems wrong headed to me while also outfitting our police with surplus military equipment and wonder why we have the violence.

Are former military police officers actually killing people at a disproportionate rate?

Possibly. More studies need to be done. But former military bring things to the job that many departments aren't equipped to handle. Like PTSD.

It was discussed here, though if you want to read: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/722421.page

 Bromsy wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


We also prioritize candidates with military training for police recruitment over civilians which seems wrong headed to me while also outfitting our police with surplus military equipment and wonder why we have the violence.

Are former military police officers actually killing people at a disproportionate rate?

Yeah I think this is a training and competence issue not a officer background issue. There is literally no plausible explanation for why the officer had his service pistol drawn and his finger on the trigger in this situation. This reminds me of the Fruitvale Station incident in regards to unnecessary and unsafe handling of firearms leads to NDs and unwarranted deaths.

Average Somali IQ is 68.

Can't rule out the role of psychiatric medications IFF the Somali was under treatment from psych doc.

Partner reports that he was "stunned" when the passenger Somali who the woman who was talking to them from the driver's side window.

Every cop whom kills an innocent should lose the badge and see the inside of a jail. This man should either hang or be committed for life.

 Kanluwen wrote:
There needs to be penalties for juries or jurors who come back with nonsense verdicts like we've seen recently. I don't know what the penalties should be or how they should be penalized, but there is a very real issue with this and it needs to be addressed.

What a disgusting train of thought.

May as well follow that train, right? Why have juries at all? Just convict and sentence anyone you disagree with or think is guilty. feth juries, feth evidence, feth laws.


Maybe, just maybe you ought to look at how the prosecutors handle cases/what charges they prosecute, and the actual laws and instructions to the jury the judges give. Heck, look at how evidence is presented by prosecutors. Often they charge too high/extreme and can't present evidence to support the charges. Juries are told exactly what to consider and the relevant statutes in their instructions.

Never mind. feth juries and our whole criminal justice system. Go with feelings and skip trials.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I used to think body cameras were a very viable solution to the problem of police brutality, but I don't think so anymore. After all, there was no shortage of footage of cops executing a man for selling loose cigarettes.

The real problem is that culturally, juries give a crazy amount of deference to police - maybe too much. I understand that cops have to make split-second decisions and that monday morning quarterbacking seems unreasonable, but I also think ti's become readily apparent that police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents that a non-LEO with a CCW would clearly go to jail for. This needs to end at the prosecutors office and the jury box, and isn't a technological fix.

I don't there is ever a simple fix to something as complex as this, especially when there is a a subjective element as to whether the LEO felt that their life was at risk. Body cameras are just another layer of accountability. But if they are not recording and a Prosecutor does not want to peruse the matter their merits are largely academic.

There really is a series of simple fixes to this.

Stop letting police officers routinely skate on use of force incidents. There needs to be penalties for juries or jurors who come back with nonsense verdicts like we've seen recently. I don't know what the penalties should be or how they should be penalized, but there is a very real issue with this and it needs to be addressed.

No. No. No. Juries are allowed to come up with a not guilty verdict for whatever reason they want and that is a good thing. Yes, guilty people will go free, but I'd rather 100 guilty go free than one innocent be punished.

No, they're not. Juries are supposed to look at the evidence and render a verdict based upon that.

That is NOT what happens. Ever served on a jury, even in a fairly high profile case? Because there are people serving on juries right now who have no business tying shoe laces for a living let alone deciding someone's fate.

Jury nullification is there for a reason. A very good reason. There are checks to allow people found guilty to appeal. Still, I err on the side of juries being able to find people not guilty.

Stop letting police officers be able to turn off their body cameras or dashboard cameras. The second those cameras go off, if anything happens while they're on duty? Fired and immediately put into county jail. No charges, no nothing. Just jailed for the same amount of time as a civilian would get for whatever crime that might have possibly been committed

Fired...Sure. However, no one goes to jail without charges and a trial. The evidence might be cut and dry, but prove that in a court of law.

Nope. Straight to county jail.

They agree to be LEOs. Nobody forced them to do it.

This is beyond scary what you are suggesting. You don't give up rights to a trial, period. If this was allowed, what would be the next thing people would be locked up without a trial for?

 skyth wrote:

Stop letting police officers be able to turn off their body cameras or dashboard cameras. The second those cameras go off, if anything happens while they're on duty? Fired and immediately put into county jail. No charges, no nothing. Just jailed for the same amount of time as a civilian would get for whatever crime that might have possibly been committed

Fired...Sure. However, no one goes to jail without charges and a trial. The evidence might be cut and dry, but prove that in a court of law.

Nope. Straight to county jail.

They agree to be LEOs. Nobody forced them to do it.

This is beyond scary what you are suggesting. You don't give up rights to a trial, period. If this was allowed, what would be the next thing people would be locked up without a trial for?

Law enforcement agencies want to act like they're paramilitary organizations that are constantly at war with the populace, they get treated as such.

It's hilarious how there really is one set of rules for "the good guys" and one for "the bad guys".

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:


Possibly. More studies need to be done. But former military bring things to the job that many departments aren't equipped to handle. Like PTSD.

It was discussed here, though if you want to read: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/722421.page

Yes, I recall the thread. In which there was no evidence shown that indicated veterans were more likely to hurt people than non veterans in policing fields. Also, if police departments aren't equipped to handle PTSD are you also advocating that any police officer involved in even the most justified of shootings be immediately fired and never employed as a police officer again, since many of them also suffer from PTSD in dealing with those events? Furthermore, are you also advocating that somehow the vast majority of veterans, who do not suffer from PTSD should be barred from police service due to your unproven feelings that there is a link between PTSD and heightened levels of violence against innocent people by former military police officers?

It appears to me that you have a 'feeling' that veterans are more prone to violence and are just going with that despite there not being any evidence. Should we ban Somali immigrants from being police officers? Apparently a statistically significant percentage of Somali immigrant police officers in Minnesota kill innocent people

On the heels of the Philandro Castile verdict, the area is reeling.

Ooooh, the "Veterans are dangerous PTSD monsters" card has been played. Now this thread is going places.

Can't wait until I retire and get treated like a citizen that should be avoided because I might snap at any moment.

Tell you what, don't want so many veterans as police officers, then start pushing your local businesses to hire them.

Many combat veterans cannot find work because everyone is afraid of the "PTSD" boogeyman. It's ignorance like stated up above that keeps that perpetual train going, and it's a reason so many are forced into the police, because it's the only place they are accepted.

 djones520 wrote:
Ooooh, the "Veterans are dangerous PTSD monsters" card has been played. Now this thread is going places.

Can't wait until I retire and get treated like a citizen that should be avoided because I might snap at any moment.

Tell you what, don't want so many veterans as police officers, then start pushing your local businesses to hire them.

Many combat veterans cannot find work because everyone is afraid of the "PTSD" boogeyman. It's ignorance like stated up above that keeps that perpetual train going, and it's a reason so many are forced into the police, because it's the only place they are accepted.

Or it might be because there aren't many jobs period out there.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Ooooh, the "Veterans are dangerous PTSD monsters" card has been played. Now this thread is going places.

Can't wait until I retire and get treated like a citizen that should be avoided because I might snap at any moment.

Tell you what, don't want so many veterans as police officers, then start pushing your local businesses to hire them.

Many combat veterans cannot find work because everyone is afraid of the "PTSD" boogeyman. It's ignorance like stated up above that keeps that perpetual train going, and it's a reason so many are forced into the police, because it's the only place they are accepted.

Or it might be because there aren't many jobs period out there.

Yes, I'll tell that to the number of Infantry men I know who have been turned down for jobs, when their combat experience came up, that there just isn't any jobs out there.

It could be also that despite all the promises of training that will apply in the real world, leading men and following orders isn't really that much of a resume boost.

The issue of PTSD and Somalis having low IQs aren't really relevant.

 djones520 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Ooooh, the "Veterans are dangerous PTSD monsters" card has been played. Now this thread is going places.

Can't wait until I retire and get treated like a citizen that should be avoided because I might snap at any moment.

Tell you what, don't want so many veterans as police officers, then start pushing your local businesses to hire them.

Many combat veterans cannot find work because everyone is afraid of the "PTSD" boogeyman. It's ignorance like stated up above that keeps that perpetual train going, and it's a reason so many are forced into the police, because it's the only place they are accepted.

Or it might be because there aren't many jobs period out there.

Yes, I'll tell that to the number of Infantry men I know who have been turned down for jobs, when their combat experience came up, that there just isn't any jobs out there.

Speaking as a civilian, yes. There aren't a whole lot of places seriously hiring for any job that can be used to live on--even with careful money management. Law enforcement agencies are always hiring...and that's part of the issue with these kinds of things happening.

I'll also agree with you wholeheartedly that the PTSD thing is overblown or horribly misrepresented, but I will also point out that you can thank the politicians who have constantly elected to cut money from the VA and a general idea from some of those same politicians that PTSD isn't a "real disease" as to why there's this stigma. There have been cases(the shooter in Baton Rouge last year, for a recent example, was reportedly refused treatment by the VA for PTSD claims with the VA doctors saying that his issues came after his service rather than during and as such he was ineligible for any claims that might be done through the VA) that could have been possibly avoided or mitigated with the proper funding for agencies and treatment in place.

I should also add that, in general, there is a very real segment of the population here in the US that believes that PTSD is "made-up" or that it can only apply to "combat troops or law enforcement agents who were shot at". There are people who try to claim that a victim of a sexual assault can't have PTSD or that a kid who was raised in a gakky environment and subject to physical/mental abuse can't have PTSD either.

TL;DR:
Jobs are hard to come by right now.
Mental health treatment in this country is a joke.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Yet the Ultramarine jokes were classy? There is no class in this thread.

Or are we pretending there isn't a race issue in the US when it comes to the criminal justice system?

I don't recall offering an opinion on the Ultramarine jokes, nor did I make any comment about race not being an issue in the criminal justice system.

So you just arbitrarily decided to jump down Crispy78's throat because reasons?

I mentioned race prior to him and you ignored that, and someone made a dumb Ultramarines joke and you ignored that. So, I am not sure what level of class you thought this thread was at, but Crispy78 didn't lower anything. It just seems like you are trying to stir gak.

Whoa easy there buddy, leave my admittedly not classy but I would argue at least average joke alone

RULE #2 - STAY ON TOPIC.

Back on topic here, please.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm advocating for police to be actually held accountable for their actions.

I want to live in that world. I really do.

You can, just move to Sweden (or any of the other nordic countries I'd imagine)
We average less than 5 fatal shootings from police every year, and pretty much all of these shootings are more or less justified.

If a police here where to lethally shoot an unarmed person, they'd be fired within a day, prosecuted within a week, and most likely end up in jail within a month.
(Well maybe not that fast, but you get the idea.)

 Bromsy wrote:
Are former military police officers actually killing people at a disproportionate rate?

No one knows, because there are no really good statistics on how often the police kill people.

My gut feeling - and again, I reiterate, I can't back this up statistically - is that combat veterans are likely less likely to use lethal force as officers because the ROE in actual fething war zones is so much more restrictive. Veterans are disproportionately represented in policing which skews what you do see.

The victims of "veterans with PTSD" gun violence are usually themselves - which is a great American tragedy we see time and time again and seem incapable of dealing with. We need to do better, a lot better - but that's a different thread.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Speaking as a civilian, yes. There aren't a whole lot of places seriously hiring for any job that can be used to live on--even with careful money management. Law enforcement agencies are always hiring...and that's part of the issue with these kinds of things happening.

The part of the issue there being that any agency, city etc that needs LEOs will sometimes have to take what they can get, not what they want? Veterans have at least showed that they can follow orders and sometimes give them so they do have an edge over civilians who think it's cool to wear a blue suit and carry a gun.

I do think this particular case might go like the one where a senior citizen acting as deputy (because he donated to the department and the Sheriff was an old friend) shot a suspect by mistake while the guy was already being held by 2-3 real cops. That deputy was kicked out and faced charges last it was up here, and the Sheriff was being investigated too for allowing someone with no qualifications to ride around with a gun.

Not only will he be out of the force (probably facing charges), maybe someone else will be in trouble too. Surely something is wrong in the training procedures here? Might be men were needed so badly that someone ignored stuff that shouldn't be ignored, like bad language skills, bad training scores or a nervous personality. Let's see what comes up.

 Xenomancers wrote:
This case is totally bizarre. Black Male Somali refugee shot white female Australian citizen in Minnesota?

Almost as bizarre as people attributing this to american racism - neather victim or shooter is an American.

There wasn't any racism in the shooting but some just popped up in this thread. You've just called a Somali refugee who came to the US as a kid, was schooled in the US, and joined a local police force not an American.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:
i don't know the model they used, but body cams can run over 8 hours on a charge and record the whole time. Worst case scenario they swap mid shift. They should not be able to chose when to switch it on or off.

It's also simply not practical to expect officers to know when something that needed to be recorded is about the happen. The whole point is that events escalate from routine to life threatening in seconds, expecting officers to stop and turn on their body cams before they respond to the life threatening situation is crazy.

Ok, so this is purely my impression, but I spend a lot of time in the states and even know a retired cop and I get the feeling that the US police (and a large portion of the population), tend to err on the side of the police protecting themselves, whereas over here in the UK, public opinion and police behaviour is much more on the civilians come first (even if they're criminals).

There is also a cultural attitude of "shoot 'em down" in the US, part of which must come from the frontier days, but I'm sure is enhanced by action movie mythology.

You can see this with the response to terrorism too; all through the Irish troubles we treated terrorists as criminals, to be caught and convicted. Once the US got involved, we suddenly have a "war" to fight.

Not making any comment on the morals, rights, wrongs or effectiveness of any of the above, just trying to highlight the difference in culture and attitude that I have personally seen.

 Kanluwen wrote:
There needs to be penalties for juries or jurors who come back with nonsense verdicts like we've seen recently. I don't know what the penalties should be or how they should be penalized, but there is a very real issue with this and it needs to be addressed.

With one foul swoop you've just removed judicial independence. I mean holy crap, do you know what the state can do if it can make juries afraid to give the verdicts it has honestly arrived at?

The second those cameras go off, if anything happens while they're on duty? Fired and immediately put into county jail. No charges, no nothing. Just jailed for the same amount of time as a civilian would get for whatever crime that might have possibly been committed

The modern world looks down on arbitrary punishment.

What would be consistent with modern ideas of justice would be to punish the offense each time, regardless of whether it coincided with a shooting or other major event. You would sanction and eventually fire officers who routinely hand in cameras with missing periods. Then, once you've built a culture where cameras are on throughout a shift, it becomes clear that any time officers turn off their cameras and something happens, you have reason to be suspicious of officer intent and be dubious of their statements on the event.

Start weeding out officers with excessive "sketchy" situations in their files.

The problem is that officers with long lists of complaints get that way because they're the officers with long lists of arrests and being active, committed policemen. Just arresting people will get some of them filing against you out of spite. The only way to avoid that is to be passive, not see crimes, not chase suspects down. And the problem is that we don't have a very good system of determining genuine complaints from terrible ones. So we default to this terrible metric of 'well he has lots of complaints against him therefore...', and you are looking to double down on that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:
Average Somali IQ is 68.

Can't rule out the role of psychiatric medications IFF the Somali was under treatment from psych doc.

Holy fething gak everyone just get a load of what got written. And people want to debate whether racism plays a role in justice for these shootings.

The guy came to the US as a child, went through US schools, and then joined a US police force. But people hear 'somali refugee' and start posting stuff about the IQ scores of people who are fully raised in the war torn country, as if that was relevant. And because that isn't enough, somehow it's more likely he's on medication because he came from Somalia decades ago.

Just wow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
This is beyond scary what you are suggesting. You don't give up rights to a trial, period. If this was allowed, what would be the next thing people would be locked up without a trial for?

It's kind of fun to come up with scenarios where Kanluwen's new law becomes obviously ridiculous. Consider an officer's camera fails. It gets knocked, or gets wet, whatever. So the officer reports this, and is told to return to the station. On the return drive the officer witnesses a crime, stops his car and moves to the scene. A man approaches him with deadly force, and the officer shoots, killing the man. Apparently that officer is going to jail for a long time, without a fething trial, according to Kanluwen's law.

Hell, if his partner had a still working camera that showed the incident and showed it was a lawful shooting, then the officer would still be going to jail without a trial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jadenim wrote:
Ok, so this is purely my impression, but I spend a lot of time in the states and even know a retired cop and I get the feeling that the US police (and a large portion of the population), tend to err on the side of the police protecting themselves, whereas over here in the UK, public opinion and police behaviour is much more on the civilians come first (even if they're criminals).

There was a significant shift in policing strategies in the US in 60s and 70s. For a whole bunch of reasons the number of police deaths on the job spiked considerably. This led to a cultural change, special weapons police teams became more common, policing tactics shifted from engagement to situation control etc.

Police deaths plateaued and then declined slowly. Then along with all other major crime indicators police deaths started plummeting in the early 90s, and they haven't stopped falling ever since.

But police culture didn't shift back. And that culture has become embedded now, senior command grew up in those days of paranoia and high police deaths. Changing it back will be a herculean task.

 MinscS2 wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I'm advocating for police to be actually held accountable for their actions.

I want to live in that world. I really do.

You can, just move to Sweden (or any of the other nordic countries I'd imagine)
We average less than 5 fatal shootings from police every year, and pretty much all of these shootings are more or less justified.

If a police here where to lethally shoot an unarmed person, they'd be fired within a day, prosecuted within a week, and most likely end up in jail within a month.
(Well maybe not that fast, but you get the idea.)

I think we've had 3 police shootings this year in the UK. One was the guy who ran at Parliament with a knife, and killed a cop before he was taken down. Another was the three guys in the London Bridge incident.

Worth also mentioning, *every* time someone dies as a result of the UK police force, there is a mandatory investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

 Jadenim wrote:
You can see this with the response to terrorism too; all through the Irish troubles we treated terrorists as criminals, to be caught and convicted. Once the US got involved, we suddenly have a "war" to fight.

Not the best example you could hope to give for police restraint, especially with practices such as internment and police officers admitting that confessions were obtained by torture

Here are some more of the basics:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/07/18/we-are-utterly-devastated-family-demands-answers-after-minneapolis-police-shoot-and-kill-woman-who-called-911/?utm_term=.13faf184bc30

Investigators probing the death of an Australian woman who was fatally shot by Minneapolis police officers over the weekend said Tuesday that the officers were “startled by a loud sound” near their patrol car right before the shooting.

The two officers were driving through an alley near the home of Justine Damond, 40, after she called 911 late Saturday to report a possible assault, according to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), the state agency investigating the shooting. The officer who was driving the patrol car told investigators that right after the loud noise, Damond approached the car on his side. The officer who was in the passenger seat then fatally shot Damond through the driver’s side window, according to investigators.

The information released Tuesday marked the first account from one of the officers about what happened at 11:30 p.m. on Saturday in the upscale Minneapolis neighborhood, and it came as relatives of Damond have sharply criticized law enforcement officials for not revealing more about the shooting.

I hate to say it, but this is the type of situation that might actually get white, suburban people to start seriously talking about police shootings in a way BLM could never do.

The victim was a upscale, white woman who was basically a meditation and yoga instructor. You do not get more surburban/New Urban than that. She was the one who called the cops in the first place, and she was the one who wound up dead? Plus she was a white, blonde lady which the media usually frenzies over.

Maybe this will be the tipping point..... but most likely not.

Edit:
The story is also setting up the 'Black Guy" is the villain narrative, only this time it the officer and not the victim....

Noor currently has had three complaints filed against him with the city’s Office of Police Conduct Review, two of which are still open. The other complaint did not result in any disciplinary action, and any records regarding complaints are not made public unless an officer is disciplined.

He is also the subject of a lawsuit filed one day before Damond’s death. In that case, a woman is accusing Noor and two other Minneapolis police officers of forcing their way into her house, violently detaining her and taking her to a hospital against her will. The woman had called 911 multiple times and, at some point, was ordered to be involuntarily taken to the hospital and to be placed on a mental health hold, according to the complaint. The lawsuit, which is seeking $50,000 in damages, was filed in Minnesota’s Fourth Judicial District Court on Friday.

The script has been flipped a bit this time.

There is now speculation that the officer mistook fireworks for gun shots; http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-40651470