Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal
i read this elsewhere and it made sense to me, 'My dad used to teach police studies. He basically made cops in the UK. Whenever he saw anything like this (at the time it would be in N. Ireland, S. Africa or China) he said that no policeman ever shoots an innocent person. No lawman ever uses unreasonable force to detain a suspect. As soon as they cross that line they are no longer an agent of the law employed to serve and protect the public interest. They are just wearing the uniform, nothing more.'
thoughts?
|
Sounds great on its face, but this really doesn't differ from the laws and policies in the US (though not necessarily the practices).
In the first instance, the hitch in your generality is "innocent person." I know of no American law or policy that specifically allows shooting innocent people. If you're referring to Ferguson, knocking off a convenience store, assaulting its owner, assaulting a cop while going for his gun and then charging a cop don't exactly qualify as innocent in the eyes of the law.
As for your second point, the word "unreasonable" force is already implicit within our law (i.e., only "reasonable" force is allowed). The hitch is determining ,after the fact, (as in Staten Island) whether the force was reasonable or not. The cops actions on the video seemed excessive to me, FWIW.
In a violent, well-armed society such as ours, British policing practices are unfortunately impossible. If our society becomes less violent and less well-armed, perhaps the British model is viable.