Ferguson

[SerenityNigh]

In a way, yes it is impossible to reason. Americans have grown up with guns as a part of daily life, Britons haven't. Neither can fully understand the others culture or way of thinking.

This is well said

I'm not sure if thats sad or stupid or funny. I'm certainly not laughing.

You would have a more intelligent opinion if you learned a little American history

It is definitely an attitude thing, and I think it is based on deep fear.

First part true, second part untrue; it's a cultural issue. For better or worse, guns have always been a part of American life. It's only recent generations, and even then largely those in big cities, that have grown up without guns.

 

[WA Toffee]

First part true, second part untrue; it's a cultural issue. For better or worse, guns have always been a part of American life. It's only recent generations, and even then largely those in big cities, that have grown up without guns.

As an outsider, I thought that gun ownership in the US was on the increase, you seem to be suggesting that it is actually on the decrease. Would it be a case that less people are owning guns, but those that do, own more of them?

 

[L4Everton]

You would have a more intelligent opinion if you learned a little American history

Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull have no opinion or ancestry, that is American history in ten words. Ironic that one of the most successful tools of war and death dreampt up by herr yanks was the Apache attack helicopter.

home of the brave('s). Or not.

 

[SerenityNigh]

As an outsider, I thought that gun ownership in the US was on the increase, you seem to be suggesting that it is actually on the decrease. Would it be a case that less people are owning guns, but those that do, own more of them?

People and households with mundane exposure to guns is on the decline. 150 years ago there was not enough police presence in most of the west (if not the entire US) that owning a gun was a basic security measure. 100 years ago you could buy a handgun through the mail from the Sears Roebuck Catalog. 50 years ago many grew up in households with guns. Today, a large portion of the US have never seen a gun in a mundane circumstance, despite the increase in gun-toters (not that I think this is mundane). Individual gun ownership may indeed be on the rise, but more and more have never actually been exposed to guns.

Update:

from the New York Times, with interesting comments in the article

 

[magicjuan]

I love the idiots in here saying that those cops should have just retreated and went for a taser. You do not have time to think it out or wait it out in a situation like this. This guy was threatening them with a knife from about 3 to 6 feet away. A former cop stated that officers do not usually carry tasers at all times. He also stated the taser must be ready to fire, really not sure how they work. Tasers are not 100% effective because there are individuals who will not go down when hit with one. When an idiot who is acting crazy, carrying a knife, and threatening you, you do not just sit there and try to think it out. The officers have to make split second decisions when facing danger. In instances where officers must use their weapons they are trained to hit center mass of the individual they are firing upon.

Everyone in here is playing armchair quarterback behind their computer when judging these police officers. Yes, there are some bad officers in the US, England, etc. But that doesn't mean all police officers in the US are blood thirsty and looking for some type of high. It is impossible to argue with some of you because you already have this conclusion on US officers and guns in the US.

When the policeconfronted the 2 balloons who had killed Lee Rigby they had the following, 2 armed men, who had just committed an horrific murder, had bigger knives, had more watching public, were more restrained, were approached in the same manner...very intense situation

still managed to bring both down to be tried in the court system without killing them

are british police better shots or less hot headed and trigger happy?

Just saying....

 

[WA Toffee]

People and households with mundane exposure to guns is on the decline. 150 years ago there was not enough police presence in most of the west (if not the entire US) that owning a gun was a basic security measure. 100 years ago you could buy a handgun through the mail from the Sears Roebuck Catalog. 50 years ago many grew up in households with guns. Today, a large portion of the US have never seen a gun in a mundane circumstance, despite the increase in gun-toters (not that I think this is mundane). Individual gun ownership may indeed be on the rise, but more and more have never actually been exposed to guns.

Update:

from the New York Times, with interesting comments in the article

I wasn't aware of that, I think it is a good trend to see though. First thing that strikes me about the photo in the link though is that every person seems to be a middle aged white male. Not sure what that says though?

 

[Tree13]

It is definitely an attitude thing, and I think it is based on deep fear. The US seems to be indoctrinated to believe that there is a threat around every corner and it is imperative that they deal with this threat by arming themselves. That of course leads to more petty criminals being armed as they are aware that any burglary/theft etc could end up with them being the "victim". And so it spirals and spirals out of control, and people become more and more fearful and are more conditioned to ensure they get their retaliation in first.

And every time we get an incident such as this, the fear factor increases resulting in an increased likelihood of another incident happening

This is the bit that doesn't compute - why on earth do people carry out burglaries and thefts in the States, knowing that there's a fair chance they'll encounter a gun-toting homeowner?

And once the would-be burglar arms themselves with a gun, they cease to be a "petty" criminal IMHO. An unarmed person sneaking into my house to pinch my tv is not going to end up dead at my hands because he's simply not a big enough threat to justify that response; a person sneaking into my house with a knife or a gun on the other hand is a massive threat to the safety of of my family - you don't need a weapon to subdue my tv.

 

[Tree13]

"To a pulp" seems a bit exaggerated to be fair.

Also, pretty sure one situation is recoverable, and one isn't. Unless we've found a cure for mortality.

How about to death then? Ian Tomlinson's family thinks the british police are uncontrollably violent towards unarmed civilians, and they are not alone.

In the first situation the british copper faces the risk of a few cuts and bruises; in the second situation the american copper faces the risk of being stabbed to death. The american is facing a far greater risk, which justifies a greater level of force in response.

Although if you went for an armed british copper with a knife, you'd get shot too.

 

[neil999]

my main point is the officers did not do enough to prevent that man dying, trained police officers..not members of the public, they failed

 

[magicjuan]

They must have known backup was on the way, judging by the time of arrivals. From the video there was plenty of space for a bigger confinement area until that back up arrived.
There was plenty of room forthe officers to retreat to, hide behind the car, until back up arrived.

The whole situation was advanced by the police unecessarily into a high speed decision situation, from then it was obvious he was going to be shot, but the severity of the response, high pressure or not this wasn't a lone vulnerable policeman, was beyond the remit of law enforcement, way beyond.

I understand to as much ss I can the pressures of policing, but the training is there to cope with that, the intensity of the situation too, but to me itsobvious the decision taken looked more like the response of someone who was having a bad day, not a professional

 

[Elong]

How about to death then? Ian Tomlinson's family thinks the british police are uncontrollably violent towards unarmed civilians, and they are not alone.

In the first situation the british copper faces the risk of a few cuts and bruises; in the second situation the american copper faces the risk of being stabbed to death. The american is facing a far greater risk, which justifies a greater level of force in response.

Although if you went for an armed british copper with a knife, you'd get shot too.

If you're not a criminal, you shouldn't have too much to worry about should you?

 

[Walken]

my main point is the officers did not do enough to prevent that man dying, trained police officers..not members of the public, they failed

That's a good point, once the man, or threat was incapacitated, they cuffed him and stood over him with their guns, happy to let the man die, these are more the like the actions of a military junta, than a police force in a democratic society. Not exactly making any effort to win hearts and minds are they

 

[Tubey]

I love the idiots in here saying that those cops should have just retreated and went for a taser. You do not have time to think it out or wait it out in a situation like this. This guy was threatening them with a knife from about 3 to 6 feet away. A former cop stated that officers do not usually carry tasers at all times. He also stated the taser must be ready to fire, really not sure how they work. Tasers are not 100% effective because there are individuals who will not go down when hit with one. When an idiot who is acting crazy, carrying a knife, and threatening you, you do not just sit there and try to think it out. The officers have to make split second decisions when facing danger. In instances where officers must use their weapons they are trained to hit center mass of the individual they are firing upon.

Everyone in here is playing armchair quarterback behind their computer when judging these police officers. Yes, there are some bad officers in the US, England, etc. But that doesn't mean all police officers in the US are blood thirsty and looking for some type of high. It is impossible to argue with some of you because you already have this conclusion on US officers and guns in the US.

See, the difference is in the UK they'd have given themselves thinking time by not driving straight up to the guy with shoot to kill as the first option if he did approach.

You think things like that don't happen to unarmed street cops in the UK? They do. Not many are shot dead as a result of it, as they simply retreat, watch, call back up, use negotiation or non-lethal takedown techniques, and job done.

 

[neil999]

That's a good point, once the man, or threat was incapacitated, they cuffed him and stood over him with their guns, happy to let the man die, these are more the like the actions of a military junta, than a police force in a democratic society. Not exactly making any effort to win hearts and minds are they

this is my point, emergency services risk their lives to save people, ...there was no attempt at all here

his 'guilt' is irrelevant , they still should have done as much as they could to prevent him dying

edit - it did seem more like a 'war' situation

 

[magicjuan]

If you're not a criminal, you shouldn't have too much to worry about should you?

All when and good when what is determined as criminality is done through a public system, these cases highlight a judge, jury and executioner mentality in split seconds.

Laws are changed daily and above all interpretation of law is now out of the hands of public input or consideration, it is there to protect business, power structures or profit, not the people and is used accordingly for a political will.

Minor infractions are now seen as terrorism acts as they are interpreted under that law and dealt with as such by promoting a fear based propaganda, again, to suit political aims.

This man was obviously mentally unstable and had stolen 2 cans of pop. I have done worse and would suggest a hell of a lot on these boards have too.