* Change rules of engagement for police to emphasise de-escalation when possible and gradual escalation when absolutely necessary. E.g. in the UK police won't even have firearms on them most of the time unless specifically called to deal with a suspected incident involving weapons, but even if they do, the focus tends to be on de-escalation and waiting the situation out if possible (e.g. someone sat in a car with a gun for about 12 hours a couple of miles from me some months ago; police just got people out of the way and waited until he calmed down, while neighbours talked to the press and whined about why they didn't just shoot him - he had mental issue and a young daughter that presumably was very happy police were calm and collected).
One of my pet examples here was a case in the US were a guy with an axe was shot after charging a police officer. This was a justified killing in that the police officer was under real threat. But she shouldn't have been in danger in the first place - two of them charged in and confronted the man, instead of clearing a perimeter and waiting for backing. In contrast when I called police (UK) over a possible assault near my house a couple of years ago, they sent 8 officers for an incident with no suspected weapons involved.
Bonus points for:
* Reducing sentences for crimes carried out without weapons significantly. E.g. in Norway, using firearms can easily add 10 years to a sentence that might be 5 or less without weapons.
* Treat any use of weapons to stop e.g. a robber as murder if it's not clearly done in self defense.
Point being that criminals needs to see it as worthwhile to not bring a gun. If it is more dangerous for them to do something unarmed than it is to do it armed, and there's little meaningful difference in sentencing, then why wouldn't they go in armed?
The US has created a perverse incentive for criminals to arm themselves to the teeth.
Part of the reason for the quick escalation is that (American) cops are taught things like the Tueller Drill https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwHYRBNc9r8 that claims that an attacker can close 21 feet in 1500 milliseconds and stab a victim so many times that even a fast ambulance response won't save him from bleeding out.
This idea means the cop has to unholster a pistol as soon as any sign of noncompliance is showm, start firing if a person "reaches for their waist", and empty the magazine because this Olympian attacker won't be stopped by a few bullets.
They just "want to get home to their families" despite the fact that car accidents are deadlier to cops and garbage men have more dangerous jobs.
The response to that would be that part of the reason you'll see UK police most of the time get people out of the way if they can, keep their distance and call for backup and be patient unless there are people in immediate danger.
Since UK police only exceptionally carry firearms, they have to play things safer. E.g. respond with more people. Keeping greater distance.
But lots of other police forces have - sometimes heavily - armed police with better results because they effectively act on the basis that using their weapon is an absolute last resort, and so you keep your distance if there's a risk they're armed, and call for backup rather than approach etc.
The video you quoted clearly articulates the preference for getting out of the way of the attacker, keeping the distance and avoiding the direct confrontation. Unholstering the pistol does not imply an indiscriminate shooting. The video is suggesting a reasonable course of action in an emergency situation.
It's not just Italy... the entirety of the European continent sets a great example, even acknowledging the corruption that still takes place.
The question to the US is: how can they become less insular and more open to ways of living that aren't strictly 'American'? You would think the constitution is now set in stone: societal progression is at a complete halt after committing to a few rules 200 or so years ago. And I know that sounds hyperbolic, but even in that time it's still the case that race is a fundamental issue in the US.
It's honestly even worse than that in some ways, because we were still pretty actively adding to/changing the rules as recently as the late 1960s, and then we just kinda...stopped.
A little off-topic but I thought the meta was you are more likely to be beaten up/tortured by police while in custody in Europe/Asia as opposed to while in custody in the US? I have no experience in these things. Have I misunderstood this?
Thank you for the reply. Yes, I understand that Scandinavian countries do a lot of things better. I also understand that prisons are terrible in the US and jails are worse still.
However, from stories I've heard about "interrogation techniques"...
My understanding is that it is unlawful to torture (physically, mentally, ...) into answering questions and/or confessing to any crime in the US and you have a right to remain silent (in theory at least) in police custody. How well is enforced in other countries?
From what I understand, local police (talking about custody, not jail or prison) in the US will sometimes use torture techniques like isolation or suicide watch and will beat suspects when they get a chance (moving between rooms or whatever) but this is uncommon.
It's enforced better than in the US, on many levels.
First, they can't really arrest you without motiv, they can't even detain you without motiv.
Second: you can confront a police officer in EU, they won't shoot you or handcuff you, unless you pose a real danger to public safety.
I had a fight with one of them three months ago, he almost ran over me with his bike and when I confronted him he removed his jacket and told he was a police officer. I said "you are two times wrong then"
He yelled at me he was going to bring me in, I said "no way" and meanwhile people gathered around me and started saying to the police officer he was abusing his powers, that they had seen what he'd done with his bike and where ready to testify against him, if he didn't apologize.
He went away.
That's almost impossible in the US, where officers are trained to respond physically to basically anything that they consider a threat.
Stefano Cucchi is a very peculiar case he wasn't lawfully tortured, he was killed by the police and then they tried to cover it up.
I went to many events in support of his cause.
After years of trial the officers have been condemned and many high ranking officers asked for forgiveness to Stefano's sister, Ilaria, a great woman who stood alone against the injustice her brother faced.
But it's been a very popular case all over the news, for years, there have been a few others in Italy, but the point is it is unlawful and you can count them on the fingers of one hand.
The real problem in Italy is that it takes decades to get a final judgement.
And right now the right wing parties, that also support Trump, that wants free guns for everybody like in the US.
Anyway, torture is a crime in Italy and it is considerd an aggravating factor if it is committed by an officer.
> Anyway, torture is a crime in Italy and it is considerd an aggravating factor if it is committed by an officer.
Thank you. I appreciate your answering my questions and not assuming I am asking rhetorical questions (something I am not very good at yet). I didn't know about the case and saw it when I googled for any case.
> And right now the right wing parties, that also support Trump, that wants free guns for everybody like in the US.
I don't know for sure as I am not friends with many 45 supporters but my understanding is the "base" is more interested in guns for everyone more than 45 himself. Not that it matters in the larger scheme but just thought I'd share my understanding.
I don't blame the people of US, but their cultural system, I do.
Those who criticize or just reports things that don't work in the States are immediately flagged as anti American, it's like an instinct.
Their homicide stats are worse than many developing countries in Africa, four time worse than Canada, six times worse than China, ten times worse than Europe and Asia
Singapore's homicide rate is 30 times lower than in US!
It's really a lot
It's a failure, no matter how one frames it
But it's still very hard to get the general population to confront the numbers
They say you shouldn't shoot the messenger, but even on HN, where people are generally more educated than the average, it's really hard to start a conversation about the causes of this debacle
I lost 20 points of karma in two days because I showed stats about police brutality in US
I hope they'll get it one day, I live in Europe, my country has a lot of problems and there are many things that US does better and we looked at them for decades in search of a solution to our shortcomings
But if there's one thing we do well in EU is how our police handles critical situation, it varies from country to country of course and there are exceptions, Poland is not Spain, but in general it's true
Homicide rate was 4 per 100k in the 50s, spiked up to 10 through the 60s and 70s, dipped a bit in the 80s, then dropped from 1991 to to now back to around 6.
The increase in crime in the 60s and 70s didn't correlate with more guns, the decrease in crime in the late 90's didn't correlate with fewer guns.
There is clearly something going on in the US that drives crime that is not guns. Culture, welfare state, war on drugs, inequality, segregation, failure of the family. Better cases to be made on any of those things than guns.
I think the GP is correct to point out the gun thing too. Having lived in a place where guns aren’t as accessible and observing how people live, I’m sure there is some correlation.
You're saying homicides have historically varied in the US by a factor of 2, and this variation cannot be correlated with notable changes in gun availability. Previous comments mentioned a factor of 10 difference in homicides compared to countries in Europe, arguably with the most notable explanatory correlation being gun availability. If the only crimes we are talking about are homicides, then there does seem to be a pretty good case.
Some people thrive on the empowerment, liberty and responsibility associated with these incredible death machines. But that's no reason to mistreat the data. For instance, the ratio associated with other death machines like cars, which have somewhat similar availability across the pond between US and Europe, is a more reasonable factor of 2/3.
Your causation goes the wrong way. The GP didn't say that less crime would cause fewer guns, but that fewer guns would cause less crime. You can't say "but guns stayed the same and crime both increased and decreased at points, which means that guns don't affect crime".
You can't say "but guns stayed the same and crime both increased and decreased at points, which means that guns don't affect crime".
I didn't say they don't affect crime, but if crime spikes, then drops then spikes, while gun ownership remains steady, then it is a piece of evidence that crime is largely driven by something other than the quantity of guns.
How? The fact that you can stop eating omelettes and still have the same amount of eggs in your fridge doesn't make you can make omelettes without eggs.
All of those are multiple times higher than Italy. There are other factors that cause decade-level differences in homicide rate, but if you want to bring the baseline homicide rate down, you could do worse than looking at access to guns.
I'm not a criminal (for the most part[0]). Nor am I a police officer. Why should I have a gun?
[0] WTF is a "criminal" anyways? I use illegal substances sometimes. I drive above the speed limit (like everyone else does) most of the time. Back when I played poker on US sites I didn't pay taxes on my winnings even though I should have. I can think of a ton of examples where I simply do not follow the law and so according to the definition of the word I am a criminal.
In the context of the above discussion, "criminal" is the person who is using the gun for criminal activities, i.e. murder, extortion, etc. I can see the arguments that such criminals should not be in possession of a firearm. I can also see arguments that power-hungry cops should not be in possession of a firearm either. But as a private citizen, who is neither, why should I surrender a gun? I am not a threat to anyone.
Why should you have a gun? It is a personal preference. Like art or poetry. You are free to want whatever you want. If you do not like/want guns, please do not have them. But, please do not impose your preferences on others.
We have a culture problem, both in the public and in the police. We also have politicians who show no shame in exploiting class warfare to the point of telling people that the deck is stacked against them, wealthy people stole it, and more. Politicians who in one turn tell people to stay at home, don't go to church, or parties because its dangerous to their health, then turn around and say protesting is more important. Who never fail to exploit societal strife as a means to get their name in the press. Out one side of their mouth they claim that the police are out of control while behind closed doors curry favor of the public employee unions who empower the problem.
We have an inner city culture whose music celebrates violence and does not celebrate women but instead treats them like property or worse. We have an inner city culture where schools teach kids to rely on the government and not their parents and the adults. We have an culture where not getting an education can sometimes be seen as a badge of honor and time in jail as the same. We networks with endless broadcasts of cop shows and other crime and violence shows which normalize the environment
Then on top of this you get the police. A group which has been militarized from day one from boot camp, supposedly part of which is to insure healthy cops but rarely is the physical requirement part of a continued job requirement. Who have ranks like any military organization. Who salute each other like any military organization. Who have uniforms , some for daily use, which makes it near impossible to separate them from military members. Who are issued guns for all routes and allowed to keep them on their person off duty. Who are trained by their organization and union that it is them versus the bad guys.
So there is a lot to fix but it starts at the top. Politicians must be held accountable for the mess they create and division they foster. We have to get to the music industry to police itself and tone down the violence of their lyrics and treatment of women. We need a entertainment industry which does not rely on the crime and shows with excessive violence. We need schools to emphasize the good of society and how to improve each student's outcome regardless of situation.
We did not get here overnight. The riots in Detroit back in the 60s should have been understood better but instead politicians capitalized on the fear, drove further wedges among all races, and empowered the police to be more militant. Remember who has controlled politics in most major cities since then and you may understand the lie sold to everyone. They never intended to fix the problem, they intended to feed on it. The political class used it as a guarantee of power.
