Dardan wrote:We don't seem to have that problem. Just increase taxes on the wealthy, get a single-pay health-care system and reform your retarded justice system and you will be able to afford these things and much more as well.
How is that going to make it so that we have two cops for every suspect and case? In fact, why is that even really a necessity?
Not to mention you make that sound far more simpler than it actually is. What, exactly, do you want to reform? I do admit that police are often times given light punishments on their crimes and the court can have a bias for them, but that doesn't mean they necessarily go unpunished and being found guilty can outright ruin their careers{or in the case of Darren Wilson, just being assumed you're guilty is bad enough}.
The court does not make decisions on popular opinion or what is "morally" right, they have a precedent for decision making and also make decisions based on their the law itself. If we had a court where the cry of the people made decisions, our legal system would be a mess.
There is a police manual somewhere on with disturbed individuals and the officer probably broke a lot more protocols from the manual than the ones I referred to.
What manual? Where?
The show is blameworthy because it styled and edited the footage to enhance the cops vs criminal dynamic (e.g. fast editing and tense score.)
Yet it actually doesn't. There is rarely music on the show and at times the show can be pretty boring and slow. At least the show has the decency to indicate that these suspects are innocent until proven guilty. I think you should watch these if you want something that does what you're claiming "Cops" does:
http://www.criticker.com/film/Beverly_Hills_Cop/http://www.criticker.com/tv/CSI_Crime_S ... stigation/http://www.criticker.com/film/Cop_Out/And even then, your idea of "cop vs criminal" dynamic doesn't make much sense to me. It's a problem that the police are opposed to criminal activity? Why?
Blaming the crime rate in America on guns seems rather silly
Then why did you even mention gun ownership to begin with?
You are talking as if there aren't other countries on this planet that also have people and also have cops, but where, even taking the amount of guns per capita in the US into account, comparatively far less incidents happen with cops. (Even if it was due to the amount of guns per capita I doubt you would then subsequently argue for all guns to be taken in by the government and destroyed.)
I might have slipped and said "crime rate," but it's definitely apparent that you believe that guns are responsible for crimes, the opposite to which was the intention I had when I said that.
That said, that article doesn't elaborate too much on their argument and just uses data collected about various American locations to make a much broader statement than what they have any right to.
Indeed America has more guns, but lets also consider that doesn't mean that there is far less access to guns in other nations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of ... by_countryAs this article states:
"The figures do also not directly represent the number of guns available, since in some countries, such as Israel, a significant number of civilians have government-owned military guns in their possession, which would not be included in the figures below."
So how is it that, in this situation, that gun ownership is blamed for homicides? Clearly there is incentive for these people to obtain guns to begin with, which is why we see more Americans obtain firearms more than the rest of the world who has just as much access to them as the Americans do. There is a correlation, but that doesn't mean it's the causation.
Dardan wrote: Actually, they are extremely well-trained and educated assertive professionals.
And here I can prove you have trouble properly interpreting my argument.
