@Gamma Gamaliel it should be stated that there is plenty of racially motivated police brutality in the UK, it's just so much less likely to be gun-based. I would reaffirm the points about the outlier nature of the US here, but also the fact that in the US a lot of law enforcement roles such as sheriff are often *elected* roles. That creates its own problems.
Re the 2011 riots, by 2011 I think it's also fair to say that the usual targets of the Met had changed very dramatically from 1981 and this also changed perceptions. Terrorism had also made people more predisposed towards authoritarianism, and had normalised a certain degree of infringing civil liberties. And 7/7 had undoubtedly increased general support for the Met.
one of them is a very good argument for not arming the police.
yes, but in the context of virtually no one else having guns either. Not sure about the wisdom of disarming the police where you haven't got a basically disarmed population.
There are more reasons than I can count why I wouldn't want to be a policeman at all, but I certainly wouldn't be up for being an unarmed policeman in the USA or South Africa, for example.
one of them is a very good argument for not arming the police.
yes, but in the context of virtually no one else having guns either. Not sure about the wisdom of disarming the police where you haven't got a basically disarmed population.
There are more reasons than I can count why I wouldn't want to be a policeman at all, but I certainly wouldn't be up for being an unarmed policeman in the USA or South Africa, for example.
OK - put it another way - it's a very good argument for disarming everyone who doesn't have a really good reason for needing firearms.
AFAIK firearms are still relatively rare in France. I think it's notable that in recent days, I've heard quite a bit of discussion of the "Americanisation" of the French police.
Yes, indeed, and to put it another way - which came first, the armed police, or the armed citizens?
The UK's actually an interesting case there, because it had armed citizens and never routinely armed the police - though it used to be possible for any random CID man to tool up with a revolver when required.
But what we've managed to do - and it has taken well over a century - is disarm the population while still not routinely arming the police. Into the 20th century it was possible for someone in Britain to have pretty much any gun they wanted (the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights), licensing was brought in in the 1870s as a revenue measure - but even then you only needed a licence if you wanted to take the gun off your property.
Needing a gun licence to buy a gun was only 1920, then we progress on through Hungerford (ban on semi-automatics) through Dunblane (ban on handguns) to end up where we are now, which is basically rifles and shotguns only, and only if you can show why you want them. Shotguns themselves have only needed any licence since the late 1960s IIRC.
Anyway, it's tangential but relevant - the UK is one of the very few nations that has never routinely armed the police, and has progressively disarmed the population. But it didn't happen overnight.
When I read that this has occurred in France I was surprised and shocked. Had it happened in the US, regretfully I must admit I would have been rather less so.
Just want to add to my last - obviously Northern Ireland is different... and the bit about random CID officers was too flippant, we just used to have a larger pool of police - certainly in the Met - authorised to carry weapons than we do now, and that's because of tightening the rules on eligibility rather than cuts
When I read that this has occurred in France I was surprised and shocked. Had it happened in the US, regretfully I must admit I would have been rather less so.
It would only have been reported had if led to widespread rioting.
I suspect that applies to France too.
Meanwhile, @Pomana, yes, big differences and changes between 1981 and 2011 and indeed there have long been issues of systemic racism within the police and British society as a whole.
France: 37 (5.5/10 million) United Kingdom: 3 (0.5/10 million) Australia: 16 (6.5/10 million) New Zealand: 1 (2.1/10 million) United States: 1,096 (33.1/10 million)
Actually, I'd suggest that two of those are not like the others, and one of them is a very good argument for not arming the police.
I'd say that the numbers for the U.K. (3 killings by police) are very similar to the numbers for New Zealand (1 killing by police) and that the difference in the per capita values is due to low denominator effects.
France: 37 (5.5/10 million) United Kingdom: 3 (0.5/10 million) Australia: 16 (6.5/10 million) New Zealand: 1 (2.1/10 million) United States: 1,096 (33.1/10 million)
Actually, I'd suggest that two of those are not like the others, and one of them is a very good argument for not arming the police.
I'd say that the numbers for the U.K. (3 killings by police) are very similar to the numbers for New Zealand (1 killing by police) and that the difference in the per capita values is due to low denominator effects.
Agreed - what would be interesting for all the countries, is the split between justified and unjustified killings by police.
Obviously parking for a minute the pov that no killing by police is ever justified ever, but I mean killings which a reasonable person might think were the least worst alternative in the circumstances, vs gunning someone down in cold blood at a checkpoint.
Tangentially, is there any particular reason why the figure for Australia is higher (in proportion) than that for New Zealand?
Having literally just had a visit from Australian relatives working in offender rehabilitation* I could guess, though I might be way out, that the answer is going to involve greater problems with violent criminal gangs, and consequently higher incidence of lethal outcomes?
France: 37 (5.5/10 million) United Kingdom: 3 (0.5/10 million) Australia: 16 (6.5/10 million) New Zealand: 1 (2.1/10 million) United States: 1,096 (33.1/10 million)
Actually, I'd suggest that two of those are not like the others, and one of them is a very good argument for not arming the police.
I'd say that the numbers for the U.K. (3 killings by police) are very similar to the numbers for New Zealand (1 killing by police) and that the difference in the per capita values is due to low denominator effects.
I think it's impossible to draw much of a conclusion from the NZ figures really.
France: 37 (5.5/10 million) United Kingdom: 3 (0.5/10 million) Australia: 16 (6.5/10 million) New Zealand: 1 (2.1/10 million) United States: 1,096 (33.1/10 million)
Actually, I'd suggest that two of those are not like the others, and one of them is a very good argument for not arming the police.
I'd say that the numbers for the U.K. (3 killings by police) are very similar to the numbers for New Zealand (1 killing by police) and that the difference in the per capita values is due to low denominator effects.
I think it's impossible to draw much of a conclusion from the NZ figures really.
Other than to be thankful (to whom? Not sure!) that we and the New Zealanders don't live in a society obsessed with guns...
Pretty sure I noticed at least one clear-cut case of police brutality while watching the Guardian's video of the demo in memory of Adama Traore just now. I won't say which police action it was, so as not to identify the officer, but his actions seemed pretty gratuitous in any case.
[The article's on the front page, with a headline about the banning of fireworks for Bastille Day.]
Comments
Re the 2011 riots, by 2011 I think it's also fair to say that the usual targets of the Met had changed very dramatically from 1981 and this also changed perceptions. Terrorism had also made people more predisposed towards authoritarianism, and had normalised a certain degree of infringing civil liberties. And 7/7 had undoubtedly increased general support for the Met.
Actually, I'd suggest that two of those are not like the others, and one of them is a very good argument for not arming the police.
yes, but in the context of virtually no one else having guns either. Not sure about the wisdom of disarming the police where you haven't got a basically disarmed population.
There are more reasons than I can count why I wouldn't want to be a policeman at all, but I certainly wouldn't be up for being an unarmed policeman in the USA or South Africa, for example.
OK - put it another way - it's a very good argument for disarming everyone who doesn't have a really good reason for needing firearms.
The UK's actually an interesting case there, because it had armed citizens and never routinely armed the police - though it used to be possible for any random CID man to tool up with a revolver when required.
But what we've managed to do - and it has taken well over a century - is disarm the population while still not routinely arming the police. Into the 20th century it was possible for someone in Britain to have pretty much any gun they wanted (the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights), licensing was brought in in the 1870s as a revenue measure - but even then you only needed a licence if you wanted to take the gun off your property.
Needing a gun licence to buy a gun was only 1920, then we progress on through Hungerford (ban on semi-automatics) through Dunblane (ban on handguns) to end up where we are now, which is basically rifles and shotguns only, and only if you can show why you want them. Shotguns themselves have only needed any licence since the late 1960s IIRC.
Anyway, it's tangential but relevant - the UK is one of the very few nations that has never routinely armed the police, and has progressively disarmed the population. But it didn't happen overnight.
It would only have been reported had if led to widespread rioting.
I suspect that applies to France too.
Meanwhile, @Pomana, yes, big differences and changes between 1981 and 2011 and indeed there have long been issues of systemic racism within the police and British society as a whole.
I'd say that the numbers for the U.K. (3 killings by police) are very similar to the numbers for New Zealand (1 killing by police) and that the difference in the per capita values is due to low denominator effects.
Agreed - what would be interesting for all the countries, is the split between justified and unjustified killings by police.
Obviously parking for a minute the pov that no killing by police is ever justified ever, but I mean killings which a reasonable person might think were the least worst alternative in the circumstances, vs gunning someone down in cold blood at a checkpoint.
Having literally just had a visit from Australian relatives working in offender rehabilitation* I could guess, though I might be way out, that the answer is going to involve greater problems with violent criminal gangs, and consequently higher incidence of lethal outcomes?
*some eye opening conversations
I think it's impossible to draw much of a conclusion from the NZ figures really.
Other than to be thankful (to whom? Not sure!) that we and the New Zealanders don't live in a society obsessed with guns...
[The article's on the front page, with a headline about the banning of fireworks for Bastille Day.]