to be utterly shocked and appalled

[assessment]

at this, from the BBC...

www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31688942

Sorry I can't link properly, but an LAPD officer has shot dead a homeless man in an altercation on the street in LA.

The guy was unarmed, was tasered and shot dead as he lay on the floor.

What the actual fuck does this broken fucking country think it's doing with it's ridiculous gun laws?

If there isn't rioting on the street after this then I shall be extremely disappointed. This should be treated with the exact same seriousness as those appalling shootings last year of the unarmed black boys.

How can a country call itself a first world country when it's police go round shooting anyone they fancy dead? When was the last random middle class white guy shot dead in the street? Never? It's always the second class citizen on the sharp end of it.

How they can defend the right of ANY person to bear arms is utterly beyond me. It's sickening.

That police officer should be dismissed immediately and Obama needs a serious look at that ridiculous constitution.

If there were 5 cops did each of them shoot once? That would explain 5 shots.

If there isn't rioting on the street after this then I shall be extremely disappointed
yeah, nice reaction. I find riots are usually the best way to resolve conflict.
Do you like uncontrolled violence?

Adsy I will ignore your post as being rather needless.

I think anyone who believes in the accountability of the U.S. Police is living in fairyland to be honest.

Well I don't think revelling in the thought of violence is irrelevant to your post.
Did you enjoy the summer riots a few years ago? made great TV dinnit?
How about the Brixton riots? A classic of mindless destruction and out of control anger.

Don't be silly adsy

If there isn't rioting on the street after this then I shall be extremely disappointed
yeah, nice reaction. I find riots are usually the best way to resolve conflict.
Do you like uncontrolled violence?
^^
This.
How does rioting bring justice to the man who was shot?

Ok to the terminally unimaginative I will explain my statement.

If there is no justice for this homeless man (and I expect there won't be) then I hope that the U.S. citizens have just as forceful a reaction to the lack of justice for him as they have had for others (namely the young black men) who have been killed (murdered) in similar situations.

I hope that because he is white and homeless he will not be forgotten about or sidelined.

Better?

Dear god! Again!

I don't know why all these racist twats don't just publicly declare their allegiance to the Klu Klux Klan and be done with it.

FFS don't dare be a non white male on the streets of America or you may end up dead.

They're nothing but violent thugs that hide behind a uniform.

Rioting is never something that a rational and civilised society should do. It's not justice, it's anarchy

^^ This

No , it's not better.
I'm amazed that anyone could be advocating mass violence.
Do you know what happens in a proper full on riot? It's not pretty and a lot of people get hurt.
Very immature and ill thought out statement

Oh I didn't realise adsy.

My apologies.

I thought this article in the LA Times was quite comprehensive.

This is interesting: www.dw.de/why-german-police-officers-rarely-reach-for-their-guns/a-17884779

I have to say I find the idea of "Do not fuck with cops, ever" quite terrifying. I do understand that they need to protect people but the idea that they might react first and ask questions later is frightening. It just seems to leave a lot of room for misunderstandings.

This has figures for UK, US and German police shootings in 2011.

www.businessinsider.com/why-do-us-police-kill-so-many-people-2014-8?IR=T

Obama needs a serious look at that ridiculous constitution.

Much of what is in this "ridiculous" document, including the Second Amendment, is based on English law.

I agree that the Second Amendment should be revised to allow greater gun control in the US, but no president is in position to do that. Amending the constitution is a very cumbersome process.

But clearly amending the constitution must be possible... or the second amendment could never itself have come about.

I didn't say it was impossible, but it was designed to be somewhat difficult to achieve. There have been 27 amendments since 1789, and only 15 in the last two hundred years. Each proposed amendment has to be ratified by three fourths of the states. That was much easier with the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments), of which the Second Amendment is a part, because, for one thing, there were only 14 states then.

And it's not really something that the president (any president) has the power to do much about.

[quote]Two officers and a sergeant fired at the man, who was pronounced dead at the scene, Smith said. [/quote]
From the LA Times.

Gee, I wonder why there were multiple bullets then... Must just be them being thugs... Or y'know... This.

I find the attitude of oh well, they know not to mess with the police quite chilling.
When did summary street executions become okay in a so-called democracy?
I'm sure the little boy in the park posed such a huge danger to those big brave men.

If it was a summary street execution. I didn't know anyone had a good enough view to say that. Of course unjustified shootings should be treated as murder.

That German article says bluntly that people shot by German cops still tend to be mentally ill & vulnerable.
Wrestling with a cop is usually a very bad idea, anywhere and everywhere. Worse so if the cop is lethally armed.

American cops are taught to shoot twice, iirc, if you're gonna shoot at all you always shoot to kill and two bullets are twice as certain as one. What would be the point of shooting otherwise? Shooting only to wound is preposterous, (and shooting to disable a moving vehicle is actually very difficult). I imagine that American gun nuts and self-defence groups work on the same rules, too (always shoot to kill and twice to be sure). More than twice would be excessive if one of the bullets has clearly incapacitated the threat.

I come from an American very anti-gun family. But if you live in a society awash with them, you need to know what to expect.

"Much of what is in this "ridiculous" document, including the Second Amendment, is based on English law. "

Of the 1700s. English law has developed since.

Speaking of this being based on ancient English law, a history professor once told me that the original "right to bear arms" was actually a 14th century thing which referred to coats of arms rather than weapons

I don't know if he was right or not, but he explained that in the USA it's come to mean something it was never intended to ... not much use now, I realise, but it still seemed an interesting point

Assessment, your mistake is in assuming that America is a "First World Country" : it is not - it is a Third World Country with some First World Cities.

This assessment was first given to me 25 years ago by a former Royal Marine who had reached a very senior position in the American tobacco industry & who had a thorough knowledge and intimate understanding of American society.

For example, we were at that time living in Kentucky, which is about the same size as England but back then had a population of less than 4 million; it was divided into 120 counties, only 4 of which had regular, county-wide garbage disposal; the vast majority of the state's roads were unpaved (ie were not tarmac).

There is an awful lot wrong with America, but I love & admire the place; especially if you see it as an example of what a Third World Country can achieve for its people with a bit of First World Thinking!