1. They, regular cops, don't have adequate training, nor is there a cohesive system in place to provide adequate training. That's obviously due to the vastness of the country, the sheer amount of police needed and constantly needed to prop up the entire system.
training varies from jurisdication to jurisdiction because the US is a series of states with individual laws and identities. likewise budgets and availablity of training varies significantly. while there is wonderful training available, it is either limited seating or is logistically out of reach. POST is fairly common, and police academies as well in other states. for some police in areas that are very remote, "on-the-job" training and being placed in controlled environments like jails is considered sufficient. you tend to get the police you pay for and ask for. police that are not screen sufficiently, or allowed to abuse the public trust and are upheld by their brothers in blue seriously damage the appearance of all police.
2. A vast majority of American society has been brainwashed to be against the rule of law. There's too much free ranging in general society, in education, via the media, in parenting and in the application of law itself. Not to mention swathes of people - black communities, mexican communities - encourage lawlessness and idiotic white in power (education, law making) people back them up. By design or by virtue signalling, it doesn't matter, the whole "Don't tell me what to do/Don't put your laws on me" is just generally ingrained in American media and education, so everyone ends up infected by the stupidity.
you can never have too much freedom. perhaps other countries can't handle that. in the US, we do not have "tall poppy" syndrome. being unique and special is celebrated generally. rule of law is vastly ingrained in the US - what you are missing is that the law cannot and often will not infringe on individual rights - only when the public is at risk or you are infringing on others is there a need for law enforcement to step in. if you live your way of life and harm no one and you aren't a dick about it, no one will give a fuck what you do.
minorities making ghettos is all on them these days. redlining hasn't been a thing for years and gentrification of areas to provide improved living conditions and employment opportunities are ruined by folks that would prefer to live in squalor and violent communities than seek to better themselves and the area around them. it's disingenuous to imply that minorities in the US as a rule (official or unofficial) seek to undermine a lawful society.[/QUOTE]
...education system that's actively indoctrinating people to "resist". It's an ouroboros.
the US education system encourages teaching to meet a standardized test. with a constantly lowering bar and policies that forbid failing a student, you get crappy outcomes. nothing in that system has any impact on individual teachers or cohesive members of faculty that seek to use their job as a teacher to indoctrinate students.
The training though goes a long way to make sure people police aren't having to shoot to kill constantly.
don't mistake our police training as being "wrong" if you do not understand the differences in circumstances, society, and doctrine. in the US, people are not taught to run crying to the police for little things. if it is something escalated that far, an armed response may be required.
If they do shoot, they shoot to disarm. That is usually a massive deal.
shooting to disarm is not Australian police doctrine or training. it is a consequence of electing to do so. i spent 3 months training VPSO in the use of terrorist-specific engagement tactics and it was never a thing in any document or policy of any kind that i can remember. if you are required to draw your duty weapon you are generally required to use it in order to save your own life or the life of someone else. shooting someone it always a lethal response whether your intention is to wound or not. to do otherwise implies you had no reason to use a firearm at all.
In Tokyo, you have police boxes. The police in these boxes don't do a whole lot, but if you're slyly jay walking across a side alley at night and you hear the familiar sound of the police whistle and the stomp of a wooden stick out of the dark, most people will be like shocked and sorry.
Japanese policing is entirely different in philosophy and scope. the koban system and community policing and assigning districts is extremely precise and often new officers will introduce themselves to the entire community over time, usually by a retiring or transferring officer. likewise many jurisdiction appointments are lifetime, and policework is a dedicated career and special college purely for police. there isn't a strong comparison to most Anglosphere police structures.
Taser? Anyhow I don't fault the cops here hit me up if you wanna talk about this more
TASER devices easily fail. the statistics are about 25% or so for various reasons. here is a compliation of new stories where it is verified TASER devices were deployed note that there is a serious risk of heart attack or other death if the person being tased is particularly sensitive to electrical shocks
I don't regard my expectations for the police as asking them to go "above and beyond". I think that when you do only one thing all day, you should be better at it than the average person.
it is above and beyond directly because it is not called for in the daily course of duty - police do not encounter armed people constantly. police encounter freaks, drunks, and asshole constantly. given there is little reduction in those numbers, i postulate that police are not executing them. police are not soldiers. over the course of 8 years of policework i had exactly 2 shooting incidents. this is what i would consider typical for the time period for the average deputy sheriff in most of the US.
I expect my mail carrier to know things about the postal system. I expect my garbagemen to be good at... dumping garbage. And I expect cops to keep the peace. That is indeed a job requirement.
I'm not asking for anything unreasonable.
your expectations that every cop is to allow an armed suspect to close to lethal range is very much unreasonable. i challenge you to find someone besides yourself or Antifa that are agree with that.
i don't expect my mail carrier to water my plants or watch my house for burglaries. i don't expect my garbage men to lug a pile of scrap metal or concrete away. if they do, that's above and beyond, but it's not a job requirement however much some people might make an equivalence with "they handle garbage and see my house every day so they should be able to do these things too".
Saying you signed up to be a cop, but you don't want to deal with the icky violence is retardedly naive. As naive as trying to sell drugs without encountering any violence.
yet it proves my point. whether it is endemic or not is irrelevant. most policework (baliffs, jailers, matrons, admins, clerks, et c) encounter no violence in the same way most drug dealers do not. it's a very real and common risk of policework to encounter violence, i'm not arguing that. i challenge your statement that it is explicit is all.
It's not purely a media invention. I'm not just talking about dramatic news stories. I'm talking about numbers, studies and investigations by the Department of Justice.
See, I understand what you're getting at. I know dumbasses out there who get whipped up by the media frenzy. Like all of BLM.
Not all police killings are created the same. There's a big difference between Freddie Gray and Korryn Gaines. I know that much.
then your phrasing is confusing to me, because it is not a widespread problem. it is concentrated in a few large agencies and in very small agencies.
No, what this lawsuit says is that police have no constitutional duty to protect someone. It's an important distinction.
the suit was in 1989 and has been consistently upheld that there is no Constitutional duty to protect and serve. it was a slogan of the LAPD. it also cuts the other way - there is no relief from a compulsion to execute a properly written order to the police. if you read the ruling it's an important distinction to realize that the firearm on an officer's hip is for his own protection - not yours.
