Your police shoot unarmed black people and your president defends them. Free world my ass.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24341017.
Note that I'm only contextualizing/clarifying; I'll leave it to readers to determine which is preferable.
Better to look at rate, because it shows your risk of being shot and killed, depending on ethnicity - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123070/police-shootings...
Black: 32 per million
Hispanic: 24 per million
White: 13 per million
That is, if you're Black, your chances of being shot and killed by the police is 2.5 times higher than if you were white.
Even if all fatal police shootings were directly related to a crime committed by the person who is killed (they're not), we have to ask ourselves whether such shootings (or killing by other means, e.g. chokehold) are an appropriate technique for law enforcement.
Which crimes or actions warrant shooting or killing someone, in your opinion?
When we look at data that show killings by law enforcement officers by country, we learn that in the US people are fatally shot at 3.5 times the rate than they are in Canada and 9 times the rate as in France. You are more likely to be killed by the police in America than you are in Colombia, Egypt, Pakistan[1].
> you make it sound like the police are a murder cult. I am not saying the police are a murder cult; I'm saying that they are here to protect us and that when innocent people are fearful of those meant to protect us, something's wrong.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...
No situation warrants killing someone, but there are situations where if that happens it shouldn't be a surprise or immediately viewed as an injustice.
Specifically, violent crimes or crimes that when responded to by police, can turn into a violent situation:
- Direct violence (homicide, murder, domestic abuse, etc.)
- Gang related activity (drug operations, sex operations, etc.)
- Resisting arrest (there's no way for an officer to know what you'll do next and if non-lethal force cannot subdue you, then escalation is warranted)
Where it seems a lot of these situations get out of hand is more in the gang-related or resisting arrest category. It's reasonable for officers to defend themselves, and while it'd be ideal for a non-lethal outcome to happen in each case, it's impossible for every situation to end this way.
Something I've suggested elsewhere when it comes to the "how to reform this?" question is to do a few different things:
- Increase the pay of officers to be at the ranking of a doctor/lawyer while also requiring equally stringent qualifications and training.
- Both before and after admission to the force, regular psychological screenings and profilings that evaluate both your record, your relationships, and your social media history (warranted due to the amount of power you're granted and offset by the high pay).
- Public voting for police chiefs, psychologists, and other officials combined with the above routine psychological screenings and profiling.
Sadly, even with all of this, there will still be mistakes and injustices but I think the above can have a significant impact on making law enforcement less prone to violence.
The police do not exist to protect you, nor do they have a duty to do so. The police exist to keep civil society orderly - that may mean protecting people at times, but often times simply apprehending criminals post-crime is enough.
Put another way, no amount of police are going to prevent you from being murdered or having your wallet stolen, but more police will probably catch more murderers and thieves after their crime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth_by_coun...