@no1marauder said
"This case is the sad tale of police officers, clothed with the awesome power of the state, run amok."
So writes Federal Judge ALGENON L. MARBLEY in describing the actions of the Columbus, Ohio police during last summer's protests against police violence. (https://www.nbc4i.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2021/04/real-order.pdf p. 2).
After concluding that the plai ...[text shortened]... bber-bullets-against
This type of "police riot" was a typical response to the protests last year.
It is a complex issue with no simple solution. America’s police departments are locally administered, locally trained, and locally funded. There are few if any national standards (Miranda springs to mind). And in general American police have less training than the police of many other industrialized nations. The consequence is a wide variation in policing professionalism across the nation. The CA Highway Patrol, for example, is a very professional police force (at least it was when I lived there). At the other end of the spectrum, I recall a news item about a policeman who had been called to remove an unruly high school student from a classroom. The student flat refused to leave her desk, and the policeman stupidly attempted to separate her from her desk, alone, by sheer muscle. Of course it ended in a scuffle. I have seen with my own eyes how other police departments deal with noncompliance. In Switzerland, for example, if someone flat refuses to comply, the police call for backup. 6 or 8 officers hold the person, one or two on each arm and leg, and they know how to do it without anyone getting hurt, and off they go to the padded cell until the person calms down. In Japan, if someone makes a stink, the police bring a carpet; put the carpet on the ground, wrestle the person onto the carpet, roll up the person inside the carpet, and cart him off. Bloody simple. American police tend to rely too much on tech (tasers, etc.) when much simpler means would suffice to restrain recalcitrant people.
Second, America has become a battlefield. Citizens are too heavily armed, in many instances more heavily armed than law enforcement is allowed to be. This has led to militarization of police departments (SWAT teams on demand etc.). If American citizens were not so heavily armed, its police would not need to be either. There is simply no good reason for civilians to have semi-automatic weaponry. However, because America will not deal with the issue of sensible regulation of weapons in private hands, it must accept the logical consequence, of militarized policing.
Third, there is a level of disrespect for authority in America which further complicates the job of every policeman on the beat. The world saw an eruption of that on January 6th. In any civilized country, a policeman’s uniform and badge alone should be sufficient to get compliance from ordinary citizens (we’re not talking about bank robbers here). He should not need guns and tasers and body armor to get compliance from ordinary citizens. Good grief, look at England — their police go about unarmed. It is not the fault of America’s police that there is so little respect for government among the ordinary citizenry. It was ordinary citizens who showed up at the Capitol on January 6th, not bank robbers; that’s you America, warts and all.
Of course, none of this excuses officers who get into a funk and run amok. Lack of training possibly, or lack of oversight.