> Perhaps another explanation for a disparity of police shootings in the US vs. UK is that US police are confronted with armed and/or aggressive criminals more often.
Even if you ONLY count the number of police shootings in the US which involved shooting unarmed individuals it would be higher than all of the UK's shootings put together.
> I rather doubt they are significantly looser than those in any other western nation.
You'd be entirely wrong. US police can get away with shooting people if they feel a "threat" which is entirely not the standard used elsewhere. Other places it isn't about a police officer's fear that determines the legality of firing, it is the actual factual threat the officer faced.
For example if someone fishes around in their pockets, if that person was shot that officer would be considered justified and they would not only not go to jail but keep their job. In the UK that police officer would definitely lose their job and MIGHT go to jail.
Everyone loves to point out the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting [0]. And as messed up as that was, that was a national scandal, there was two investigations, supposedly changes were made, but what is interesting is that those types of "incidents" happen it seems on a weekly basis in the US and nothing ever seems to happen and there is very little outcry about it.
Just this week a US police officer shot an unarmed escape convict in the back as they were running away. Nobody is even defending this as the default assumption is that that officer was justified. That is the new normal in the US. Shooting unarmed people in the back...
In particular: The Tennessee v. Garner ruling in 1985 in which the U.S. Supreme Court [...] abolished the Fleeing felon rule where a fleeing felon who posed no immediate threat to society (e.g., a burglar) could be shot if he/she refused to halt.
Also: In the 1989 Graham v. Connor ruling, the Supreme Court expanded its definition to include "objective reasonableness" standard—not subjective as to what the officer's intent might have been—and it must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene
So it isn't just the subjective sense of fear an officer may feel.
The US is a big place. It's possible to find a few incidents where an officer didn't live up to standards and training and try to make it seem like it's a bigger problem than it is, if that's your agenda. Certainly shooting fleeing people in the back is not "the new normal" in any way that I can see.
Even if you ONLY count the number of police shootings in the US which involved shooting unarmed individuals it would be higher than all of the UK's shootings put together.
> I rather doubt they are significantly looser than those in any other western nation.
You'd be entirely wrong. US police can get away with shooting people if they feel a "threat" which is entirely not the standard used elsewhere. Other places it isn't about a police officer's fear that determines the legality of firing, it is the actual factual threat the officer faced.
For example if someone fishes around in their pockets, if that person was shot that officer would be considered justified and they would not only not go to jail but keep their job. In the UK that police officer would definitely lose their job and MIGHT go to jail.
Everyone loves to point out the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting [0]. And as messed up as that was, that was a national scandal, there was two investigations, supposedly changes were made, but what is interesting is that those types of "incidents" happen it seems on a weekly basis in the US and nothing ever seems to happen and there is very little outcry about it.
Just this week a US police officer shot an unarmed escape convict in the back as they were running away. Nobody is even defending this as the default assumption is that that officer was justified. That is the new normal in the US. Shooting unarmed people in the back...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menez...