Is it even a movement, it seems more like a hashtag that people use. Movements tend to have leaders, staff, volunteers, infrastructure etc. Its more like a protest catch phrase.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

And so have US police departments by not holding officers accountable for excessive force and violation, and creating an environment and situation that massively favours police officers when facing disciplinary proceedings.

As long as the police investigate themselves and have friendly prosecutors and close ranks, the police will always be 'above the law'.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Interestingly in areas where body cameras have been deployed, incidents of complaints against the police dropped around 80%, and incidents of brutality by the police dropped 60%.

Problem is, and this is a key issue, its not a race thing. It just stands out as a race thing, because the Black Civil Rights movement is very powerful. The problem is that a surprisingly high number of Americans are being shot by the police, notably poor people it seems.

What is disturbing is how when this is shown not to be a specifically racial issue, its deemed 'not a problem'. As if killing an equal proportion of unarmed white innocent people as black would justify killing unarmed innocent people.

The problem isn't with racism in the Police. Its with Policing in the US, and the fact that oversight, accountability, financing, training and professional standards vary from 'good' to comical.

Ok, its two incident, and its off John Oliver, so its limp wristed liberalism. But an account of officers who shot and killed someone, whilst still under investigation for a questionable shooting and an officer who got a job as an officer, after resigning rather than take a DUI test when drugs and booze were found in his car, at a different police force.

Then when investigations are issued, they're typically in house, and prosecuted locally (where the police officers and prosecutors are closely involved).

Policing in the US is a lottery.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

This is the really crazy part of many of these shootings - they occur in states where it is perfectly legal to waltz around brandishing a gun. Therefore, police shooting a suspect because he is armed, should not be any sort of defense whatsoever.

Tamir Rice was sitting in a park, on his own, holding a toy gun. The police rolled right up to him in a cruiser and shot him within 2 seconds of coming to a stop. He never pointed the gun at the officer. This was in Ohio - an open-carry state - where Rice, even if he was carrying a real gun, was not breaking any law.

This not only goes to show the terrible job the police do in many of these shooting situations, it also highlights the lunacy of open carry and how such a privilege is for whites only.

Edited by Ray in Houston (04 Oct 2016 6.13pm)

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Imitation fire arm, not a toy.

The officer shot a 12 year old kid, holding a imitation gun, within 2 seconds of getting out of the car. If you think that's acceptable approach to policing and procedure - I don't think the police officer broke the law, but f**k me that some very shoddy procedure and process, to get straight out the car, and shoot.

No attempt to contain the suspect, call in back up and control the situation. Ascertain the actual threat. Rather than Roy Rogers in like its some kind of action movie. That's the problem. Poor discipline, poor training

The issue with the US is that there is this whole if you can legally defend it, its right and that feeds into the whole problem.

I notice you left out the bit about the emotional stability of the shooting officer, who resigned rather than being recorded as unfit for duty, as a police officer in Independence.

Or that his partner had a previous settled claim of excessive force against a woman.

The shooting, from a legal position of criminal, is reasonable, but that's a long way from being acceptable, which was also the view of many expert witnesses.

Whilst the two officers did not commit a criminal offence the County settled a lawsuit for 6m from the family (knowing that on a balance of evidence rather than reasonable doubt the county police department would not win the case - due to the greater scope of the offence).

I don't think the officers are to guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but that the police department, its recruitment policies, its handling of shootings, training, its processes and procedures - particually with the handling of internal investigations of its own officers - were responsible for creating situations like this.

And that's the problem in a nut shell.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Which is why you shouldn't be a copper or police man without extensive training. You cannot operate and perform the role of a police officer whilst acting in the same way as an ordinary member of the public.

Police officers have to be able to remain calm and in control, in dangerous situations. Which is, why like soldiers, they under go extensive specialised training in how to deal with specific situations most people will not encounter.

I don't doubt the officer acted 'within the law'. The question is a) is this kind of police response acceptable. b) would this be acceptable if it was a different neighbourhood (such as a nice middle class area). Personally, I think we all know that if the police rolled out and shot down a nice kid from a nice middle class family with an airsoft pistol in the same circumstances, they'd be hell to pay.

They settled because they knew they'd probably lose the case. They employed an officer whos previous employers had listed as unfit for duty, emotional unstable and a potential danger to life - and recorded that on his file - He'd only avoided being sacked (which would have made him unemployable) by resigning, and then Cleveland police never run a background check when recruiting him. Suggesting either they knew, and didn't care, or were negligent.

There is no way they could have won a civil case. The officers managed to avoid charges really on a reasonable doubt basis. In civil court, on balance of probability, with a prior on one cop of excessive force against a woman, they were going be found culpable - which would have exposed their internal procedures, processes and training etc, opening them up for more law suits, possibly even a class action law suit if they were found to be negligent in their training, oversight, recruitment and protocol.

That's why they settled for 6m.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]