This should help things!!....from the BBC A new law has come into effect in the US state of Texas that allows students to carry concealed guns on campuses. Students aged 21 or over who have a concealed handgun permit may take guns into classrooms, under the new law. Texas has now become one of eight US states that allows students to carry guns into college buildings. Many higher education officials and students are concerned the law may discourage students from attending universities in the state. But supporters of the law argue it is "critical" to self-defence and upholding constitutional rights.
This should help things!!....from the BBC A new law has come into effect in the US state of Texas that allows students to carry concealed guns on campuses. Students aged 21 or over who have a concealed handgun permit may take guns into classrooms, under the new law. Texas has now become one of eight US states that allows students to carry guns into college buildings. Many higher education officials and students are concerned the law may discourage students from attending universities in the state. But supporters of the law argue it is "critical" to self-defence and upholding constitutional rights.
Yeah but in the last couple weeks restricted access to abortion and voter suppression laws have been knocked back in Texas. They can do whatever stupid shit with their guns that they want, as long as we can enforce federal law in their state I'm good.
Are you saying it's good that students can now carry concealed firearms to university lectures?
No, I'm saying I'm more concerned about enforcing Federal laws currently on the books in states like Texas, who are constantly trying to pick and choose the laws they follow.
Genuinely, if I had my way I'd make all guns in the US illegal. The number of guns and shootings, and the ability to get access to high powered weapons and ammunitions is a huge problem. It's just that, at this point, I don't know what to do about it. We used to have Federal laws that limited these things and called for background checks (The Brady Bill amongst others), but since that was allowed to lapse, it's state rule.
Genuine question, not trying to be patronizing, do you understand how the whole state versus federal law thing works? Because honestly, a lot of people here don't. Basically, if there isn't a specific federal law about something, states get to make up their own law. So since Federal laws lapsed, states are now allowed to pass whatever "Go apeshit with all your guns" laws they so choose.
Without sounding a bit thick @SDAddick - how do the federal laws lapse?
I've always been a bit confused by US laws, and the difference between federal and state. I understand federal ones are the "law of the land", so to speak, whilst states are seemingly free to fill in the gaps at a local level. It just seems a nightmare, I'm sure I remember reading about people in the medicinal cannabis business who - despite doing no wrong in the eyes of the state - were worried about FBI involvement.
Are you saying it's good that students can now carry concealed firearms to university lectures?
No, I'm saying I'm more concerned about enforcing Federal laws currently on the books in states like Texas, who are constantly trying to pick and choose the laws they follow.
Genuinely, if I had my way I'd make all guns in the US illegal. The number of guns and shootings, and the ability to get access to high powered weapons and ammunitions is a huge problem. It's just that, at this point, I don't know what to do about it. We used to have Federal laws that limited these things and called for background checks (The Brady Bill amongst others), but since that was allowed to lapse, it's state rule.
Genuine question, not trying to be patronizing, do you understand how the whole state versus federal law thing works? Because honestly, a lot of people here don't. Basically, if there isn't a specific federal law about something, states get to make up their own law. So since Federal laws lapsed, states are now allowed to pass whatever "Go apeshit with all your guns" laws they so choose.
Only a vague understanding (and tbh interest). I just find a pro active decision to increase the availability of guns within classrooms utterly abhorrent nonsense.
Another in Milwaukee on Sunday night. An ARMED African American was shot and killed by an African American cop. The firearm with the kid who got shot was reported stolen earlier in the month. So to make a long story short, Milwaukee (or at least a percentage of ignorant folks) began rioting, resulting in the burning of buildings including a BP gas station in Northern Milwaukee (already a crime stricken area). I live only about an hour away from Milwaukee and I have many friends who live in and near there. Absolutely stupid to destroy your own city. If you point a gun at a policeman, what the fuck do you think is going to happen?? Too close for comfort this one
Actually, a majority of Americans do favor some sort of restrictions on guns but a well-organized minority (the NRA) have used America's system of checks and balances to argue that "any" restrictions would be unconstitutional.
I think it was the West Wing that suggested that, as the NRA has ~5m members, get 6m people to join up and then vote to disband the NRA.
Just for my own understanding, why do the NRA oppose having sensible checks in place ?
They think the 2nd amendment is absolutely inviolate. And also they don't understand what the word amendment means.
Or should judges stick to what the founding fathers intended?
And here's one of the most advanced guns that existed when those guys made the amendment. Hard to imagine anyone pulling this out of their pocket and taking down the patrons of a saloon.
This for me is the point I always think about when you have gun nuts going on about the constitution... Stick to what the founding fathers said... All guns should have a timer on them replicating the fire rate of a gun back then... The guns today are insane compared to the time the constitution was written
But you will never be able to make real change because all these guns are already out there and I think they have a pretty long "useful life." Every time Obama makes a pro gun law speech gun and bullet sales rocket. It's very hard to get the toothpaste back in the tube once it's out..
Are you saying it's good that students can now carry concealed firearms to university lectures?
Just opened up this thread and found a half-written response to Arthur and Lucky.
No, I'm saying I'm more concerned about enforcing Federal laws currently on the books in states like Texas, who are constantly trying to pick and choose the laws they follow.
Genuinely, if I had my way I'd make all guns in the US illegal. The number of guns and shootings, and the ability to get access to high powered weapons and ammunitions is a huge problem. It's just that, at this point, I don't know what to do about it. We used to have Federal laws that limited these things and called for background checks (The Brady Bill amongst others), but since that was allowed to lapse, it's state rule.
Genuine question, not trying to be patronizing, do you understand how the whole state versus federal law thing works? Because honestly, a lot of people here don't. Basically, if there isn't a specific federal law about something, states get to make up their own law. So since Federal laws lapsed, states are now allowed to pass whatever "Go apeshit with all your guns" laws they so choose.
Only a vague understanding (and tbh interest). I just find a pro active decision to increase the availability of guns within classrooms utterly abhorrent nonsense.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. Let me be clearer, the reason I bring up State versus Federal law is that because there is no Federal law on this, it allows states to pass ridiculous bills like allowing guns on school campuses. Despite the attempts of many within the Federal government, including President Obama, and nationwide approval for a variety of gun control measures like background checks and making high calibre weapons like AR 15s illegal, nothing can be done due to the NRA's ability to block fun control laws at the Federal level.
@LuckyReds It's a good question, and one which is contradictory in how it works. You have it right, Federal law is "law of the land," or law as put forth by the Federal Government applying everywhere. State laws then fill in the gaps. When there is conflict, it goes through the court system. Federal laws lapse when Congress decides not to renew them. It varies on things, but laws usually have an expiration period. And yes, it gets very confusing when you get into the details.
Marijuana laws are an excellent example of the disparity between state and Federal law. In Federal law, marijuana is illegal. However, individual states (Washington, Colorado, Oregon) have made recreational marijuana legal. And other states, California, have it where medical marijuana is legal. The Obama administration came out a few years ago and said they don't want to prosecute marijuana crimes anymore, at least not for possession of marijuana. But there is still that awkward gap.
I work in Federal Government contracting, which requires a drug test before hiring new employees (don't get me started on how stupid this is). Until recently, I lived and worked in California, and hired people there. Because medical marijuana is legal, we always tried to give people a heads up on the drug test that was required to hire people because they could be on a legitimate medical treatment in marijuana, totally legal in their state, but be rejected for employment for THC. It's similar to me being denied employment because my drug test came back positive for Prozac.
California, in its continuing attempt to remain a stereotype, is going to vote yet again this November on legalizing recreational use of marijuana (meaning you don't need a prescription for it). The last time we did this, the way it was broken out was that county to county got to vote on whether or not it would be legal. So yes, on top of state and federal law, you also have local law as well. It was basically the dumbest way to handle it (though it was most beneficial to the large growers in northern California).
As an aside, drug crimes effect minorities at a disgustingly disproportionate rate, and in some places crack cocaine sentences are up to 20x more stringent than powder cocaine sentences (read crack is a drug for poor people, coke is for the wealthy). Anyway, I digress.
So there we go, I set out to explain things and only made them more confusing .
Another in Milwaukee on Sunday night. An ARMED African American was shot and killed by an African American cop. The firearm with the kid who got shot was reported stolen earlier in the month. So to make a long story short, Milwaukee (or at least a percentage of ignorant folks) began rioting, resulting in the burning of buildings including a BP gas station in Northern Milwaukee (already a crime stricken area). I live only about an hour away from Milwaukee and I have many friends who live in and near there. Absolutely stupid to destroy your own city. If you point a gun at a policeman, what the fuck do you think is going to happen?? Too close for comfort this one
Another in Milwaukee on Sunday night. An ARMED African American was shot and killed by an African American cop. The firearm with the kid who got shot was reported stolen earlier in the month. So to make a long story short, Milwaukee (or at least a percentage of ignorant folks) began rioting, resulting in the burning of buildings including a BP gas station in Northern Milwaukee (already a crime stricken area). I live only about an hour away from Milwaukee and I have many friends who live in and near there. Absolutely stupid to destroy your own city. If you point a gun at a policeman, what the fuck do you think is going to happen?? Too close for comfort this one
An interesting read. I'm trying to find something I read around 2014 that talked about (as this article somewhat does) how these people have no other way to protest, no other options to them. Voting doesn't do any good, going to city council meetings don't do any good, they still see their mostly young men gunned down or thrown in jail by an oppressive justice system. They have literally no alternative.
There's no alternative to rioting and burning down your city after a kid pointed a gun at a cop? I'm not sure if that's your opinion or the article you read, but that's a load of tosh.
There's no alternative to rioting and burning down your city after a kid pointed a gun at a cop? I'm not sure if that's your opinion or the article you read, but that's a load of tosh.
I didn't explain that well, will try to do a better job later.
In the interim, it's worth remembering that nothing happens in a vacuum. Cities like Milwaukee and Chicago (where I was born) are some of the most racist, with some of the most racist policing in the country. The below article does not indicate that the man shot was aiming a gun at police:
As I wrote this, breaking news came through that seven officers involved of the shooting of a young man wandering in traffic with a knife should be "fired." You can see this video if you search it out, it is ridiculous policing.
What you're seeing is the result of years of oppression and violence. I'm not saying rioting is the answer, of course not. But we saw this in Los Angeles when I was growing up with the Rodney King riots. People are sick and tired of the way things go and they just don't have any other way to show that. I also recommend reading the article I posted earlier because it does discuss the role of monopolistic capitalism in keeping people in poverty in poverty.
Police in Ohio shot dead a black 13-year-old boy who they said brandished a firearm which turned out to be a BB gun.
Teenager Tyree King was taken to hospital in Columbus where he died just after 8pm on Wednesday evening.
Police were responding to a call about an armed robbery in Columbus involving multiple suspects.
They said when they arrived on the scene, the victim told them that they had been approached by a group of people wanting money and one of them had a gun.
Police officers found three men matching the suspects’ description, two of whom fled on foot.
“Officers followed the males to the alley ... and attempted to take them into custody when one suspect pulled a gun from his waistband,” police said in a statement, as reported by the Associated Press.
“One officer shot and struck the suspect multiple times.”
Police said what they thought was a gun being drawn from the child’s waistband was actually a BB gun - a type of air gun that shoots steel pellets - with an attached laser sight. None of the officers was injured.
The killing comes almost two years after police in Cleveland, Ohio, shot dead 12-year-old Tamir Rice, who was holding a pellet gun.
Officers spoke with one of the male suspects who was with King. They interviewed him and released him pending further investigation. He was not injured.
The Columbus police division said, as with all police-related shootings, the officers will receive “mandated psychological support counselling and will have the chance to “take leave time to assist in recovery from a traumatic experience”.
NBC reported that the officer who fired the gun worked for the force for nine years and had only recently been transferred to that neighbourhood.
The shooting is still under investigation.
In 2014, police shot black teenager Tamir Rice within seconds of arriving on the scene.
His death sparked protests across the country. The two officers involved were not indicted last December and Tamir’s family received $6 million in a civil rights lawsuit settlement in April.
Explosion in the Chelsea district of NYC last night, very little details about though, apparently a second device was found and remotely destroyed by robot.
Unarmed man killed, two days later a terrorist has a fire fight with police and lives.... Wtf is that all about
What chance have you got when police, as in the situation of the unarmed Tulsa man, are stating over the police radio "looks like a bad dude to me, may be on something..." Just before he gets shot and complying with everything the police tell him to do.
I've seen footage of the Terrence Crutcher killing from various angles and imo it is simply an execution. Plain and simple. Yet some people still can't understand why people are angry.
That link should have both the dashboard cam and helicopter footage. Terrence Crutcher has his hands up and is walking over to his car when a shot or shots are fired. He was unarmed and seemingly compliant. I would say it's absolutely unbelievable but it isn't any more. This is becoming a pandemic.
If you watch the dashboard cam from the start, you see that as police arrive the run out to form a line with their guns drawn so that, by the time he is shot, there are four police officers with their guns drawn at a man holding up his hands. That to me screams a complete lack of training or understanding of a situation, most likely both.
To be fair to police, the training some of them get as it relates to conflict resolution and negotiation is neigh on non-existent. A friend of mine works training tactics to Military and Police groups. They've had Sherriff's officers and SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) teams in over the last couple months, and he has been floored at the complete lack of training that they have. They do different "role playing" scenarios, and he said that when training the SWAT team on hostage negotiations, at hostage ended up dead every time (over a two day course).
I read an article a while back, written by a Secret Service agent. His issue was the lack of police training.
Despite their high profile roles, he said the Secret Service rarely end up shooting people because they are trained to deescalate the situation.
As Colin Kapaenick said, it takes two years to be trained a a beautician, but only 6 months to be a police officer. Longer, better training has to be part of this
I read an article a while back, written by a Secret Service agent. His issue was the lack of police training.
Despite their high profile roles, he said the Secret Service rarely end up shooting people because they are trained to deescalate the situation.
As Colin Kapaenick said, it takes two years to be trained a a beautician, but only 6 months to be a police officer. Longer, better training has to be part of this
It's very true, and the American public is not blameless in this. For years and years federal, state, and local politicians ran on platforms like cracking down on crime or hiring more police officers with great success. There were stretches in the 80s and 90s in particular where you had to be "tough on crime" to get elected. The result has been vastly overcrowded jails, privatized prisons who have no accountability and are now going to be reduced drastically by the Justice Department, and a massive, massive expenditure.
I recently heard an interview with Rep. Keith Ellison (Minnesota), a former public defender, talking about when he and a fiscally conservative colleague tried introducing prison and judicial reform ~20 years ago because of the cost, they were laughed out of their local Government. The nice thing is that is changing. Drug laws and prosecutions are becoming more lax, a lot of states have gotten rid of "Three Strikes" laws that meant if a person committed three crimes, even misdemeanors in some instances, they could be sent to jail for life.
Our policing and judicial system is deeply, deeply broken. These kinds of shootings aren't new, they're just new to the news cycle. The Justice Department has come in and audited the Ferguson and Baltimore police departments (in what was previously a pretty unheard of move) and found systemic racism and corruption. We are moving in the right direction *in some ways*, if nothing else inasmuch as people are aware of these kinds of problems (especially people abroad). But the task to fix this on a longer term and larger scale is one of undoing decades (if not arguably centuries) of a broken system.
That link should have both the dashboard cam and helicopter footage. Terrence Crutcher has his hands up and is walking over to his car when a shot or shots are fired. He was unarmed and seemingly compliant. I would say it's absolutely unbelievable but it isn't any more. This is becoming a pandemic.
If you watch the dashboard cam from the start, you see that as police arrive the run out to form a line with their guns drawn so that, by the time he is shot, there are four police officers with their guns drawn at a man holding up his hands. That to me screams a complete lack of training or understanding of a situation, most likely both.
To be fair to police, the training some of them get as it relates to conflict resolution and negotiation is neigh on non-existent. A friend of mine works training tactics to Military and Police groups. They've had Sherriff's officers and SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) teams in over the last couple months, and he has been floored at the complete lack of training that they have. They do different "role playing" scenarios, and he said that when training the SWAT team on hostage negotiations, at hostage ended up dead every time (over a two day course).
There is one question that has been bothering me since watching this footage and that is why, if they believe he is a criminal, did they not handcuff him where he was standing instead of walking him over to his car, hands raised and run the risk of him doing something stupid????
That link should have both the dashboard cam and helicopter footage. Terrence Crutcher has his hands up and is walking over to his car when a shot or shots are fired. He was unarmed and seemingly compliant. I would say it's absolutely unbelievable but it isn't any more. This is becoming a pandemic.
If you watch the dashboard cam from the start, you see that as police arrive the run out to form a line with their guns drawn so that, by the time he is shot, there are four police officers with their guns drawn at a man holding up his hands. That to me screams a complete lack of training or understanding of a situation, most likely both.
To be fair to police, the training some of them get as it relates to conflict resolution and negotiation is neigh on non-existent. A friend of mine works training tactics to Military and Police groups. They've had Sherriff's officers and SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) teams in over the last couple months, and he has been floored at the complete lack of training that they have. They do different "role playing" scenarios, and he said that when training the SWAT team on hostage negotiations, at hostage ended up dead every time (over a two day course).
There is one question that has been bothering me since watching this footage and that is why, if they believe he is a criminal, did they not handcuff him where he was standing instead of walking him over to his car, hands raised and run the risk of him doing something stupid????
I am by no means an expert, but my guess would be they wanted him to put his hands on the car so that they could frisk him and handcuff him. Either that or having him lay on the ground to frisk him are pretty standard policing techniques. What on earth the officer saw in that situation worth drawing her gun in the first place, let alone shooting him dead, I have no idea.
Comments
In the year March 2015-March 2016 British police fired their weapons a total of 7 times.
This was the highest number of discharges since 2009.
A new law has come into effect in the US state of Texas that allows students to carry concealed guns on campuses.
Students aged 21 or over who have a concealed handgun permit may take guns into classrooms, under the new law.
Texas has now become one of eight US states that allows students to carry guns into college buildings.
Many higher education officials and students are concerned the law may discourage students from attending universities in the state.
But supporters of the law argue it is "critical" to self-defence and upholding constitutional rights.
Genuinely, if I had my way I'd make all guns in the US illegal. The number of guns and shootings, and the ability to get access to high powered weapons and ammunitions is a huge problem. It's just that, at this point, I don't know what to do about it. We used to have Federal laws that limited these things and called for background checks (The Brady Bill amongst others), but since that was allowed to lapse, it's state rule.
Genuine question, not trying to be patronizing, do you understand how the whole state versus federal law thing works? Because honestly, a lot of people here don't. Basically, if there isn't a specific federal law about something, states get to make up their own law. So since Federal laws lapsed, states are now allowed to pass whatever "Go apeshit with all your guns" laws they so choose.
I've always been a bit confused by US laws, and the difference between federal and state. I understand federal ones are the "law of the land", so to speak, whilst states are seemingly free to fill in the gaps at a local level. It just seems a nightmare, I'm sure I remember reading about people in the medicinal cannabis business who - despite doing no wrong in the eyes of the state - were worried about FBI involvement.
I just find a pro active decision to increase the availability of guns within classrooms utterly abhorrent nonsense.
But you will never be able to make real change because all these guns are already out there and I think they have a pretty long "useful life." Every time Obama makes a pro gun law speech gun and bullet sales rocket. It's very hard to get the toothpaste back in the tube once it's out..
@LuckyReds It's a good question, and one which is contradictory in how it works. You have it right, Federal law is "law of the land," or law as put forth by the Federal Government applying everywhere. State laws then fill in the gaps. When there is conflict, it goes through the court system. Federal laws lapse when Congress decides not to renew them. It varies on things, but laws usually have an expiration period. And yes, it gets very confusing when you get into the details.
Marijuana laws are an excellent example of the disparity between state and Federal law. In Federal law, marijuana is illegal. However, individual states (Washington, Colorado, Oregon) have made recreational marijuana legal. And other states, California, have it where medical marijuana is legal. The Obama administration came out a few years ago and said they don't want to prosecute marijuana crimes anymore, at least not for possession of marijuana. But there is still that awkward gap.
I work in Federal Government contracting, which requires a drug test before hiring new employees (don't get me started on how stupid this is). Until recently, I lived and worked in California, and hired people there. Because medical marijuana is legal, we always tried to give people a heads up on the drug test that was required to hire people because they could be on a legitimate medical treatment in marijuana, totally legal in their state, but be rejected for employment for THC. It's similar to me being denied employment because my drug test came back positive for Prozac.
California, in its continuing attempt to remain a stereotype, is going to vote yet again this November on legalizing recreational use of marijuana (meaning you don't need a prescription for it). The last time we did this, the way it was broken out was that county to county got to vote on whether or not it would be legal. So yes, on top of state and federal law, you also have local law as well. It was basically the dumbest way to handle it (though it was most beneficial to the large growers in northern California).
As an aside, drug crimes effect minorities at a disgustingly disproportionate rate, and in some places crack cocaine sentences are up to 20x more stringent than powder cocaine sentences (read crack is a drug for poor people, coke is for the wealthy). Anyway, I digress.
So there we go, I set out to explain things and only made them more confusing
An interesting read. I'm trying to find something I read around 2014 that talked about (as this article somewhat does) how these people have no other way to protest, no other options to them. Voting doesn't do any good, going to city council meetings don't do any good, they still see their mostly young men gunned down or thrown in jail by an oppressive justice system. They have literally no alternative.
In the interim, it's worth remembering that nothing happens in a vacuum. Cities like Milwaukee and Chicago (where I was born) are some of the most racist, with some of the most racist policing in the country. The below article does not indicate that the man shot was aiming a gun at police:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/14/us/milwaukee-violence-police-shooting/
As I wrote this, breaking news came through that seven officers involved of the shooting of a young man wandering in traffic with a knife should be "fired." You can see this video if you search it out, it is ridiculous policing.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/18/us/chicago-police-laquan-mcdonald/index.html?adkey=bn
What you're seeing is the result of years of oppression and violence. I'm not saying rioting is the answer, of course not. But we saw this in Los Angeles when I was growing up with the Rodney King riots. People are sick and tired of the way things go and they just don't have any other way to show that. I also recommend reading the article I posted earlier because it does discuss the role of monopolistic capitalism in keeping people in poverty in poverty.
Police in Ohio shot dead a black 13-year-old boy who they said brandished a firearm which turned out to be a BB gun.
Teenager Tyree King was taken to hospital in Columbus where he died just after 8pm on Wednesday evening.
Police were responding to a call about an armed robbery in Columbus involving multiple suspects.
They said when they arrived on the scene, the victim told them that they had been approached by a group of people wanting money and one of them had a gun.
Police officers found three men matching the suspects’ description, two of whom fled on foot.
“Officers followed the males to the alley ... and attempted to take them into custody when one suspect pulled a gun from his waistband,” police said in a statement, as reported by the Associated Press.
“One officer shot and struck the suspect multiple times.”
Police said what they thought was a gun being drawn from the child’s waistband was actually a BB gun - a type of air gun that shoots steel pellets - with an attached laser sight. None of the officers was injured.
The killing comes almost two years after police in Cleveland, Ohio, shot dead 12-year-old Tamir Rice, who was holding a pellet gun.
Officers spoke with one of the male suspects who was with King. They interviewed him and released him pending further investigation. He was not injured.
The Columbus police division said, as with all police-related shootings, the officers will receive “mandated psychological support counselling and will have the chance to “take leave time to assist in recovery from a traumatic experience”.
NBC reported that the officer who fired the gun worked for the force for nine years and had only recently been transferred to that neighbourhood.
The shooting is still under investigation.
In 2014, police shot black teenager Tamir Rice within seconds of arriving on the scene.
His death sparked protests across the country. The two officers involved were not indicted last December and Tamir’s family received $6 million in a civil rights lawsuit settlement in April.
Man shot in NYC after attacking 4 officers with a meat cleaver, surprisingly he's in a critical condition and not dead.
npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/20/494697359/after-police-killing-of-unarmed-man-tulsa-chief-promises-to-achieve-justice
That link should have both the dashboard cam and helicopter footage. Terrence Crutcher has his hands up and is walking over to his car when a shot or shots are fired. He was unarmed and seemingly compliant. I would say it's absolutely unbelievable but it isn't any more. This is becoming a pandemic.
If you watch the dashboard cam from the start, you see that as police arrive the run out to form a line with their guns drawn so that, by the time he is shot, there are four police officers with their guns drawn at a man holding up his hands. That to me screams a complete lack of training or understanding of a situation, most likely both.
To be fair to police, the training some of them get as it relates to conflict resolution and negotiation is neigh on non-existent. A friend of mine works training tactics to Military and Police groups. They've had Sherriff's officers and SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) teams in over the last couple months, and he has been floored at the complete lack of training that they have. They do different "role playing" scenarios, and he said that when training the SWAT team on hostage negotiations, at hostage ended up dead every time (over a two day course).
A good article from Shaun King on steps that can be taken right now to improve policing in America:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-introducing-25-part-series-reducing-police-brutality-article-1.2722096
Despite their high profile roles, he said the Secret Service rarely end up shooting people because they are trained to deescalate the situation.
As Colin Kapaenick said, it takes two years to be trained a a beautician, but only 6 months to be a police officer. Longer, better training has to be part of this
I recently heard an interview with Rep. Keith Ellison (Minnesota), a former public defender, talking about when he and a fiscally conservative colleague tried introducing prison and judicial reform ~20 years ago because of the cost, they were laughed out of their local Government. The nice thing is that is changing. Drug laws and prosecutions are becoming more lax, a lot of states have gotten rid of "Three Strikes" laws that meant if a person committed three crimes, even misdemeanors in some instances, they could be sent to jail for life.
Our policing and judicial system is deeply, deeply broken. These kinds of shootings aren't new, they're just new to the news cycle. The Justice Department has come in and audited the Ferguson and Baltimore police departments (in what was previously a pretty unheard of move) and found systemic racism and corruption. We are moving in the right direction *in some ways*, if nothing else inasmuch as people are aware of these kinds of problems (especially people abroad). But the task to fix this on a longer term and larger scale is one of undoing decades (if not arguably centuries) of a broken system.