We, old cops, can't speak to today's officers, had a saying, "A**hole versus a**hole, no humans involved." It described shootings where the loss of either or both involved was a plus for society, and a conviction of the survivor was also a positive outcome if jail time was given. Those shootings are included in the statistics. Until someone comes up with a nicely sorted collection of shooting numbers, the stats are just stats. The statistics are broken down into subsets by the statisticians, lawful, not lawful, suicides, homicides, accidental, self-defense, terror, and many other subsets. These are the numbers which should be published, studied and conclusions drawn from.
New York City banned guns, many years ago, 1911(the so-called "Sullivan Act"). This was done by Tammany Hall, a notoriously corrupt bunch. The fear was their people would be endangered if society was allowed to carry concealed weapons for self-protection. It was successful in that only the "bad Guys" could walk around armed with impunity through the active assistance of a rather corrupt police department and socially acceptable corrupt governments in Albany and NYC.
I'm guessing that until Law Enforcement can demonstrate the ability to protect the public from violence, as opposed to only investigate after the violence has occurred, people will insist on being able to defend themselves and each other. It isn't the gun, it's the mental state of the person using the gun. So, there will be tragic accidental deaths, wrongful deaths, and suicides which are gun related, Such collateral damage is to be expected until the need for self-protection is gone.
I'm not picking an argument, I realize we Americans have a different mindset than the English. I remember back in the 90s a Russian Governor suggested people in his region should arm themselves as the Militia (police) could not provide protection. It was one of the reasons the joint venture I was involved in imported shotguns, a versatile weapon (defense and hunting), into the Federation. Business was good.
I suspect, should a "defenseless" woman "double tap" a couple of acid throwers on motor scooters on the streets of London, such behavior would cease almost immediately.
"Over the past few years the US has seen a series of civilian killings at the hands of police that have caused widespread concern and criticism."
Not as wide spread as foreign media would like you to believe. The concern is real. The criticisms are often simply the voice of certain organizations. These groups rely in the press to keep the moneys flowing in and providing a "soap box" for a deeper and more profound agenda. The use of "civilian", "hands of police" and "widespread" was intentional and intended to evoke, not careful thought, but an emotional response.
The quote begs the question, "What percentage of those shootings were found to be criminal acts?" I suspect that number did not appear in the article. That information would fly in the face of newspaper's intent to sell newspapers. Foreign media love to promote the "wild west" image of the US. And, why not, such feeds the masses interest.
