War =/= peace? You'll be saying freedom isn't slavery next.

Aug 10, 2011 12:42

This piece outlines some of the differences between policing in London, and policing in New York. Obviously there are wider factors than just police tactics which affect the outcomes, but it is a good starting point for discussion. I have tried to include all links from the original article in case people want to read further.

Unarmed Officers ( Read more... )

uk riots, guns, new york, usa, police, new york times, america fuck yeah, gun control, uk

Leave a comment

Comments 80

pretty_angel August 10 2011, 14:08:53 UTC
Regarding:
"Since 1990, a New York Police Department report on “shooting restraint” shows, officers have shot and killed 195 people."

This post has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: August 10, 2011

An earlier version of this post accidentally understated the number of people shot and killed by police officers in New York since the start of 1990. Thanks to a reader for pointing out the error, which has been corrected above.

"Since 1990, a New York Police Department report on “shooting restraint” shows, officers have shot and killed 375 people."

Reply

kerrypolka August 10 2011, 15:11:01 UTC
AAAAAAAAH

Reply

mephisto5 August 10 2011, 15:43:42 UTC
Thank you, I will edit the post to include the correction and new paragraphs.

...three hundred and seventy five people.

...fuck.

Reply

pretty_angel August 10 2011, 18:29:41 UTC
ikr? ._.

INB4 GUNS MAKE US ALL SAVER!!!11 \O/

Reply


moussaka_thief August 10 2011, 14:28:53 UTC
I for one am so glad our police don't usually have guns.

Reply


sackofsha August 10 2011, 14:30:17 UTC
Coverage about the riots has been pretty 'meh' where I'm from (Singapore, we just celebrated our National Day yesterday). I wouldn't have known about much about the riots (and that video of that fearless woman!!!) if not for ontd_p, so thanks everyone contributing and keeping the posts coming :)

Reply


ruby_chalice August 10 2011, 14:37:04 UTC
No guns. Just more prisons please. So that when people commit crimes they can actually be sentenced to do time. Not community service, a fine or an ASBO.

Jail.

Reply

lleulu August 10 2011, 14:45:00 UTC
I'd rather more for community service - aren't the jails full because there's there a load of people sitting in prison for crimes a more productive punishment would be better? Like you hurt your community with theft, vandalism or antisocial behaviour you pay back with service.

Reply

devilstay August 10 2011, 14:52:39 UTC
Yes, community service, and better trained police to deal with these things, because I fail to see how dealing violence, with violence would help solve the problem.

Reply

ruby_chalice August 10 2011, 15:15:51 UTC
Community service has been around for a very long time. Does it look as though it's been a successful deterrent? Because from where I'm sitting, it emphatically does not.

And this ... says it all. [listen from about 01.30]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9560000/9560646.stm

Reply


witherwings August 10 2011, 15:21:34 UTC
This whole thing was ignited by the police shooting a man (and now it's become clear that he did not fire at police first). I don't think more police carrying firearms will solve anything.

Additionally, what on earth are the police's firearms officers doing using dumdum bullets? Are they trying to stop there from being any living witnesses to any excesses?

Reply

tartary_lamb August 10 2011, 15:49:08 UTC
This whole thing was ignited by the police shooting a man (and now it's become clear that he did not fire at police first).

It's worth remembering that, whatever happened, the man a) did have a gun and b) the police aren't obligated to wait to be shot at for a shooting to be considered a "clean shoot".

I'm not saying that the shooting was defensible, as I'm sure an investigation is underway to ascertain if that was the case, but the mere fact that the police shot first doesn't make them necessarily guilty of excess.

Reply

red_pill August 10 2011, 18:08:47 UTC
where they using dumdums? do you mean hollow points?

given that any use of a firearm by the police is viewed as a shoot to kill thing (and lets not dance around this, anyone who shots a gun at anther person aims to kill, aiming to wound is not a seires option, given all the factors involved, you aim for the body), its then all a matter of effectivenss. hollow point bullits are, as you point out, highly effective, and there is no ban, natinal or internaitnal, aginst there use by civil authoritys. also, i suspect, hollow points are used becous there highly ineffective aginst body amour and expend all there engery in the targe, redusing the chance of fatle riccoche and pass through, so people arnt hit by bullits coming out of the body.

the man was carrying a loaded fire arm. i dont know what happend, but provided all other prosdure was carryed out, and he didnt complie with a command to disarm, the threat to life of possion of such a wepone, if brandished, would warrent the shooting.

Reply

fatpie42 August 10 2011, 19:34:16 UTC
Precisely.

As I understand it, one of the reasons for thinking that the bullet in the radio was police issue is because it didn't just go straight through the radio.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up