I'm curious how this could even happen in England, I thought their police force was totally different from the US? I thought they only used guns as a last resort instead of as a constant threat of their gangster-style authority? was this some sort of very strange circumstance? was the cop who did it some kind of deranged murderer who somehow infiltrated the police force? or are cops around the world just not as different as I thought?

edit: this wasn't meant to make a statement about English and American cops being similar, I'm just an idiot. was only trying to ask for more context (which I have now gotten).

[–] HeartyBeast@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Around 4.3% of English police officers are armed and they are only called out on special calls.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Also, afaik, the UK does not have “qualified immunity” like the US (which, I should add, is a categorically idiotic judicial precedent).

[–] reverendsteveii@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's only a stupid judicial precedent if you assume the police are there to enforce the law and help people.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Ideally, they should be. But yes, I am also aware of the genesis of police forces in modern society.

[–] Ultraviolet@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

It is different. In the US, the cop wouldn't be charged with murder.

[–] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How many times have you seen this headline from England vs the US?

It seems you're trying to change the narrative to better suit your pre-existing US centered ego

[–] Caboose12000@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

im just trying to understand how this could happen

[–] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What do you mean?

5% of police in this country carry firearms. The car the victim was in was reported to be involved in a recent crime involving firearms. The car was seen by cameras which flagged it. The car was approached by firearm carrying officers, at least one officer fatally shot the occupant.

Did you read the comments? I still don't understand your Europe=US with gun violence take.

Edit: this has all been explained in the comment chain of your parent comment. You're a bad faith actor troll or a moron, I regret wasting time on this.

[–] Baketime@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I thought the main difference was police generally don't have guns in the UK. Has this changed?

[–] 520@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No. There are of course some armed units, but they don't do regular patrol work with their guns.

Armed units were involved here because the car Kaba was in was linked to a shooting the day before. Any involvement of firearms will invoke an armed response from police, however that does not mean they can simply shoot on sight and say they felt their life was threatened.

[–] Skua@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

It hasn't changed. The proportion of police carrying firearms in England and Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland operate separately, so E&W is the biggest UK data source) has held steady at about 5%. There are typically fewer than 10 total incidents in which the police actually fire a gun each year. Of course, it only takes one to result in a story like this one.

[–] livus@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

@Baketime

No it hasn't, but there are some police there with guns that are only supposed to be used as a last resort. Sounds like the shooter was one of those, but went a bit crazy:

by a Metropolitan Police firearms officer

[–] NuPNuA@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

We do, these firearms officers would have only been sent out as the car was linked to a firearms offence, they aren't regular officers. The case is no to determine whether him letting off the one (note only one shot, not clips worth), shot was justified in terms of the threat he perceived to himself and his fellow officers or if he reacted against his training and procedure.

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The common factor here is a very biased US outlet doing the reporting. In short:

US media: "police shoot Unarmed Black man during traffic stop"

UK media: "suspect of shooting incident cornered by police, shot when trying to ram through roadblock. Family stops public protests after seeing footage of incident"

[–] Caboose12000@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

yeah I think you're right, with that kind of extra detail I wouldn't have been confused. even the article itself didn't make it clear what the context could have been, it sounded like they were casually driving and the officer just blindfired into his car for no other reason than "criminal bad" y'know? the fact that the man was about to ram through a roadblock or that the family gave up their protest after seeing the footage should have been front and center

[–] crackajack@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People are being snarky and probably misunderstand what you're trying to ask. I presume you aren't aware that normal, on-patrol British police do not carry firearms. There are dedicated teams of British armed police on-standby and only respond when they're called upon on extreme situations.

[–] Caboose12000@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

yeah I think I went on a bit too much in my original comment, just genuinely wanted to know more details, I wasn't trying make some big statement. thanks for this info I didn't know that about British police

[–] SMTRodent@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

I mean he's literally being charged with murder and the last event like this was back around 2005, but do go on about how it's basically the same as a country where police murdering citizens and not getting charged at all is the norm.