No one is denying that shooting an unarmed man, especially one that has his arms up. However, the real question are:

1 is it endemic
2 What needs to be done about it.

To answer the first question, the statistics indicate that there are nearly 1 000 000 police officers in the USA and roughly 5 000 instances where police have had to discharge their weapons injuring about 2000 people and killing 1000 of which on average 0.5% of which are deemed unlawful and the officers charged of which 1/4 are convicted.

Considering murder rate in Australia is about 20 per 1000 000 p.a., and the number of convictions (mostly for manslaughter) of Cops in the US at between 1 to 5 is a fraction of this.

To answer the second question, the answer is to ensure that:
a) Officers are correctly trained,
b) That the use of car and body cameras are used to record instances for training /evidence,
c) That the public is trained on what to do when asked by police.

What not to do is hobble the police force, that has overseen a steady reduction in homicide deaths over the last 3 decades (to a still high 2500), such that the murders increase dramatically.

What America is looking at is an upsurge in murders of 1000+ p.a. in order to reduce unlawful killings by about 5.

The actions of the police are controlled through policies, protocols and close on-the-spot monitoring, with immediate review after any incident. Ultimately, accountability is ensured through the legislature.

However, where activists and the shadowy outfits that sponsor them (such as the highly secretive Soros corporation) are concerned, there are no such controls, no accountability and constant denial.

shadow minister
I was wondering where you get your statistics for this post.
For instance the number of police shootings deemed unlawful, and the number convicted.

And while I am posting, perhaps you could tell me why you think it is necessary for the many US police forces to have accesses to military equipment like sound cannons.Also why it is ok for state troopers in some states to be able to take money off your debit card because they think you might use the money to buy drugs.
Chris

onthebeach,

So your saying that the police are doing a fine job in very difficult situations. Does that mean that when a black man is shot in the back while running away, it is his fault?

Or that a black man sitting in his car with his hands up tells the officer that he is carrying a gun legally that it is ok for the cop to kill him.

Or a black man sitting in the road with his hands up is shot in the leg, its ok. When the cop was asked by the man why he shot him, the answer was I don't know.

It is my considered opinion that the police in the US are out of control and it is high time all police fire arm discharges should be reviewed by people not connected to the police force.

So before you start vilifying me because I have a different opinion to you and others on this thread , would it not make more sense to start talking about some solutions rather than just ridiculing some one who has a different point of view.

And just for the record I don't get any money from George Soros.

Chris

Lefty,

I got the statistics from various US federal and state government websites, some of which I have had to knit together, but as I said, my stats are approximate, (for example some years the prosecutions hit 15, but 5 is an average over 3 decades) but if you have something better please let me know.

Secondly I never commented on the equipment US police are accessing, but given the topic I would encourage the use on non lethal weapons.

As for cops debiting bank cards I had no idea it was occurring, nor have you supplied any context.

Finally, are you content to punish the guilty police that abuse their power, or do you see the need to hobble the police force further and allow the crime rate to soar?

LEFTY ONE, Monday, 26 September 2016 1:12:39 PM

Those are your straw man fallacies, you handle them.

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent"