These People are Retarded

[Loki]

Ditto for Minx. The standard of unlawful behavior for cops is almost always "did a cop do it". There are numerous cases where the cop was clearly in the wrong. Where no rational-thinking individual could have ever perceived a real threat. Where the cops clearly and grossly overreacted. Where the cops were acting based on various obvious biases. Where cops rape people (http://bigthink.com/focal-point/new-...uitted-of-rape). Here are just a brief list of NY cases; note how many ended up in a conviction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yo...and_misconduct). And DAs refused to prosecute, because no one wants to be the "anti-cop DA". And grand juries refuses to indict, because they're composed of mini-Lewks (and because DAs just don't try very hard to get those indictments). And because it's easier to believe a cop than a black male who might have a criminal record.

[Lewkowski]

Ditto for Minx. The standard of unlawful behavior for cops is almost always "did a cop do it". There are numerous cases where the cop was clearly in the wrong. Where no rational-thinking individual could have ever perceived a real threat. Where the cops clearly and grossly overreacted. Where the cops were acting based on various obvious biases. Where cops rape people (http://bigthink.com/focal-point/new-...uitted-of-rape). Here are just a brief list of NY cases; note how many ended up in a conviction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yo...and_misconduct). And DAs refused to prosecute, because no one wants to be the "anti-cop DA". And grand juries refuses to indict, because they're composed of mini-Lewks (and because DAs just don't try very hard to get those indictments). And because it's easier to believe a cop than a black male who might have a criminal record.

It isn't the justice system's fault if the jury doesn't convict. And in some cases they have.

On June 7, 2011, ex-NYPD transit officer Jorge Arbaje-Diaz was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison over a conviction related to his kidnapping, robbing and torturing of drug dealers while he was a cop in 2008. Arbaje-Diaz stole more than 1,600 pounds (730 kg) of cocaine and $4 million in cash.[14][15]

Went to prison.

On October 15, 2008, five officers attempted to arrest Michael Mineo for smoking marijuana in a Brooklyn subway station. Days later, Mineo made accusations claiming he was sodomized with a police radio antenna by the officers. On December 9, 2008, the Brooklyn District Attorney announced that three of the officers, Richard Kern, Alex Cruz, and Andrew Morales, were indicted on criminal charges. According to the District Attorney, officer Kern sodomized Mineo with his expandable baton after the officers handcuffed him. Officer Kern was charged with aggravated sexual abuse and assault, and faced up to 25 years in prison, and officers Cruz and Morales were charged with hindering prosecution and official misconduct, and faced up to 4 years in prison.[16] All three officers were acquitted of all charges.

Acquitted - which meant that it went to a jury trial.

On February 2, 2012, 18-year-old Ramarley Graham was chased into his Bronx home by a unit of plainclothes NYPD officers. Once inside, Graham struggled with one of the police officers near the entrance to a bathroom. Graham was shot once in the chest by the police officer, and Graham was eventually transported to Montefiore Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead. According to a police spokesperson, there was "no evidence" that Graham was armed. Initial statements did not explain what prompted the chase. Police would not, at first, identify the identity of the shooting officer, but police said that a small amount of marijuana was found in the toilet.[24] The shooting officer was later identified as Richard Haste, and first- and second-degree manslaughter charges were filed against him, to which Haste pleaded not guilty at his arraignment four months after the shooting. After the arraignment hearing, the Bronx District Attorney said that the shooting was unjustified, since Graham had no weapon. In the time between the shooting and the arraignment, the Graham family demanded justice. "The shooting of Mr. Graham has become a flash point in the roiling debate over police aggression; his family has taken part in several vigils and rallies to press for criminal charges in the case, as well as highlight what some critics say is a bias shown by the police against young men of color," The New York Times reported.[25]
After a judge threw out the manslaughter charges against Haste due to a technicality in the proceedings of the first grand jury, a second grand jury voted not to file charges against Haste, leading the Graham family to demand a federal investigation into the unjustified police shooting.[26]

When to trial - first case thrown out due to liberals being silly (as par the course, let's throw out things on technicalities funny enough it actually helped a cop in this case). A 2nd grand jury didn't indict but the claim the DA didn't want to is nullified since it did make it out of the first grand jury.

(Also DON'T RUN FROM THE POLICE MORONS) The instant thought I'd have as a copy is that this guy is a wanted man or has done something seriously illegal. My adrenaline would be up because a person willing to get into trouble for resisting arrest is likely to lash out. If he ran into his home he might even be looking for his gun... yeah seriously don't run from the police.

[Loki]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/17/us...-scrutiny.html And another reason why cops are able to commit crimes against the black community without getting indicted.

[Aimless]

It isn't the justice system's fault if the jury doesn't convict. And in some cases they have.

On June 7, 2011, ex-NYPD transit officer Jorge Arbaje-Diaz was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison over a conviction related to his kidnapping, robbing and torturing of drug dealers while he was a cop in 2008. Arbaje-Diaz stole more than 1,600 pounds (730 kg) of cocaine and $4 million in cash.[14][15]

Went to prison.

On October 15, 2008, five officers attempted to arrest Michael Mineo for smoking marijuana in a Brooklyn subway station. Days later, Mineo made accusations claiming he was sodomized with a police radio antenna by the officers. On December 9, 2008, the Brooklyn District Attorney announced that three of the officers, Richard Kern, Alex Cruz, and Andrew Morales, were indicted on criminal charges. According to the District Attorney, officer Kern sodomized Mineo with his expandable baton after the officers handcuffed him. Officer Kern was charged with aggravated sexual abuse and assault, and faced up to 25 years in prison, and officers Cruz and Morales were charged with hindering prosecution and official misconduct, and faced up to 4 years in prison.[16] All three officers were acquitted of all charges.

Acquitted - which meant that it went to a jury trial.

On February 2, 2012, 18-year-old Ramarley Graham was chased into his Bronx home by a unit of plainclothes NYPD officers. Once inside, Graham struggled with one of the police officers near the entrance to a bathroom. Graham was shot once in the chest by the police officer, and Graham was eventually transported to Montefiore Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead. According to a police spokesperson, there was "no evidence" that Graham was armed. Initial statements did not explain what prompted the chase. Police would not, at first, identify the identity of the shooting officer, but police said that a small amount of marijuana was found in the toilet.[24] The shooting officer was later identified as Richard Haste, and first- and second-degree manslaughter charges were filed against him, to which Haste pleaded not guilty at his arraignment four months after the shooting. After the arraignment hearing, the Bronx District Attorney said that the shooting was unjustified, since Graham had no weapon. In the time between the shooting and the arraignment, the Graham family demanded justice. "The shooting of Mr. Graham has become a flash point in the roiling debate over police aggression; his family has taken part in several vigils and rallies to press for criminal charges in the case, as well as highlight what some critics say is a bias shown by the police against young men of color," The New York Times reported.[25]
After a judge threw out the manslaughter charges against Haste due to a technicality in the proceedings of the first grand jury, a second grand jury voted not to file charges against Haste, leading the Graham family to demand a federal investigation into the unjustified police shooting.[26]

When to trial - first case thrown out due to liberals being silly (as par the course, let's throw out things on technicalities funny enough it actually helped a cop in this case). A 2nd grand jury didn't indict but the claim the DA didn't want to is nullified since it did make it out of the first grand jury.

(Also DON'T RUN FROM THE POLICE MORONS) The instant thought I'd have as a copy is that this guy is a wanted man or has done something seriously illegal. My adrenaline would be up because a person willing to get into trouble for resisting arrest is likely to lash out. If he ran into his home he might even be looking for his gun... yeah seriously don't run from the police.

Congratulations, you found three half-relevant examples. Now contrast those with the number that do not go to trial or end up in acquittals.

[Lewkowski]

Congratulations, you found three half-relevant examples. Now contrast those with the number that do not go to trial or end up in acquittals.

Did you even read my post? One of them did end up as an acquittal and the third one ended up being dismissed...

[Lewkowski]

Ditto for Minx. The standard of unlawful behavior for cops is almost always "did a cop do it". There are numerous cases where the cop was clearly in the wrong. Where no rational-thinking individual could have ever perceived a real threat. Where the cops clearly and grossly overreacted. Where the cops were acting based on various obvious biases. Where cops rape people (http://bigthink.com/focal-point/new-...uitted-of-rape). Here are just a brief list of NY cases; note how many ended up in a conviction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yo...and_misconduct). And DAs refused to prosecute, because no one wants to be the "anti-cop DA". And grand juries refuses to indict, because they're composed of mini-Lewks (and because DAs just don't try very hard to get those indictments). And because it's easier to believe a cop than a black male who might have a criminal record.

Another example:

http://news.yahoo.com/more-thousand-...225243125.html

"Former Arlington police officer Brad Miller, a 49-year-old trainee, was fired this week for what the department said was his poor judgment in events surrounding the shooting last week of Taylor, who had broken into an auto dealership and was vandalizing cars."

Note: This was clearly erratic moron who smashed his car through a showroom window of a dealership. Of course the community did not take this opportunity to educate people that violent behavior leads to violent death. Nope instead they lie about his character:

"Ronnie Goines, senior pastor of the Koinonia Christian Church where the ceremony was held, said Taylor was a passionate man who devoted his life to Christianity."

Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally. Because passionate people devoting their life to Christianity often RAM THEIR CARS THROUGH A DEALERSHIP SHOW ROOM and then further proceed to jump up and down on property and act in a deranged manner.

Sigh. Seriously - education is a good thing. Teach your kids that if you act violent, if you break the laws you might get shot dead. Even if you believe that cops are racist *that is all the more reason not to go on a crime spree.* Logic? It appears that certain parts of the country have none.

[Aimless]

Did you even read my post? One of them did end up as an acquittal and the third one ended up being dismissed...

I did read your post and your follow-up implies that you did not understand my response. You said that it isn't the justice system's fault if the juries don't convict (note: it may very well be the justice system's fault to some extent, see link about prosecutorial bias in jury selection, previous discussions about how juries are instructed and addressed etc) and that they sometimes do convict. You then presented some examples that are half-relevant to the discussion and to your statement (I say this because, as you yourself noted, one of the cases was dismissed and the other resulted in an acquittal). I therefore suggested you compare your findings to the many thousands of cases in which officers and police departments are not held accountable.

Another example:

http://news.yahoo.com/more-thousand-...225243125.html

"Former Arlington police officer Brad Miller, a 49-year-old trainee, was fired this week for what the department said was his poor judgment in events surrounding the shooting last week of Taylor, who had broken into an auto dealership and was vandalizing cars."

Note: This was clearly erratic moron who smashed his car through a showroom window of a dealership. Of course the community did not take this opportunity to educate people that violent behavior leads to violent death. Nope instead they lie about his character:

"Ronnie Goines, senior pastor of the Koinonia Christian Church where the ceremony was held, said Taylor was a passionate man who devoted his life to Christianity."

Reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally. Because passionate people devoting their life to Christianity often RAM THEIR CARS THROUGH A DEALERSHIP SHOW ROOM and then further proceed to jump up and down on property and act in a deranged manner.

Nah man passionate people who devote their lives to Christianity generally call themselves Christian while acting and speaking as if they'd like to do nothing more than to piss on Christ's corpse but will settle for perverting his legacy. I'm sure you know of whom I speak (it's you, CINO). However, you'll note that the officer in question was still in training, did something incredibly moronic that ultimately led to the death of a young man he killed. He hasn't been tried yet and even though he was still in training and has little clout, and the current climate is increasingly difficult for cops who unnecessarily kill people, it's possible he won't be tried let alone convicted.

[Lewkowski]

He was fired - and sure he probably didn't follow appropriate protocol (such as not following the more senior officer's lead) but none of that matters to the point. A. Cops are facing consequences. B. The idiot should never have broken in to the dealership and acted like a thug - if he hadn't been breaking laws he would still be alive. There is a reason why I and many other people mock the 'he was a good boy' meme that exists whenever some moron doing crime gets killed. (Hint their parents always talk about what a bright future they have... yeah... right).

[RandBlade]

Ditto for Minx. The standard of unlawful behavior for cops is almost always "did a cop do it". There are numerous cases where the cop was clearly in the wrong. Where no rational-thinking individual could have ever perceived a real threat. Where the cops clearly and grossly overreacted. Where the cops were acting based on various obvious biases. Where cops rape people (http://bigthink.com/focal-point/new-...uitted-of-rape). Here are just a brief list of NY cases; note how many ended up in a conviction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Yo...and_misconduct). And DAs refused to prosecute, because no one wants to be the "anti-cop DA". And grand juries refuses to indict, because they're composed of mini-Lewks (and because DAs just don't try very hard to get those indictments). And because it's easier to believe a cop than a black male who might have a criminal record.

I've not seen anyone suggesting corrupt or criminal cops shouldn't be prosecuted.

[RandBlade]

That mostly influences the charge brought and in determining the degree of culpability. It is not necessarily enough to determine whether or not a killing was lawful. In practice, the standard for determining whether or not a killing was lawful is to ask, "Did a cop do it?"

I'm sure you can see how this can lead to problems

Yes I do. The problem as I've frequently said is that the US cops don't just shoot people but need to shoot people. They are authorised to do so if they feel the need, that is the law. If they shoot someone correctly they are just doing their job, if they shoot someone incorrectly they are doing their job wrong. Sadly everyone will make mistakes in their job sometimes, have you never made a mistake in yours? Armed cops, like surgeons who make a mistake result in more tragic circumstances than most other jobs though.

The serious and mature thing to do is to try and address the root cause and remove the need for killing people in the first place. Which is to remove the dramatic and absurd number of cops being killed, which will in turn reduce the number of people the cops kill. Win-win.

The solution is of course gun control. Repeal the Second Amendment, take guns out of circulation, away from the criminals and the number of murders in America would plummet. As would the number of cops dying and the number of people the cops think are armed who die too. Maybe then like in the UK American cops could then be disarmed and not carry anything more than a taser as part of their standard equipment.

I don't want the US cops to kill anyone. Ideally I abhor the idea of cops carrying guns and am glad ours don't. Guns are for the military not the Police. The streets should not be a battlefield.

[Veldan Rath]

Now I see where Piers Morgan gets it.

Sorry Rand, the 2nd Amendment is not going anywhere, so please stop putting it forward as an option.

Guns being used to kill is a symptom of something in our society not the cause.

[Aimless]

Yes I do. The problem as I've frequently said is that the US cops don't just shoot people but need to shoot people. They are authorised to do so if they feel the need, that is the law. If they shoot someone correctly they are just doing their job, if they shoot someone incorrectly they are doing their job wrong. Sadly everyone will make mistakes in their job sometimes, have you never made a mistake in yours? Armed cops, like surgeons who make a mistake result in more tragic circumstances than most other jobs though.

The serious and mature thing to do is to try and address the root cause and remove the need for killing people in the first place. Which is to remove the dramatic and absurd number of cops being killed, which will in turn reduce the number of people the cops kill. Win-win.

The solution is of course gun control. Repeal the Second Amendment, take guns out of circulation, away from the criminals and the number of murders in America would plummet. As would the number of cops dying and the number of people the cops think are armed who die too. Maybe then like in the UK American cops could then be disarmed and not carry anything more than a taser as part of their standard equipment.

I don't want the US cops to kill anyone. Ideally I abhor the idea of cops carrying guns and am glad ours don't. Guns are for the military not the Police. The streets should not be a battlefield.

That is a solution that will literally never be implemented in the US. Barring that solution, there are a number of things that can be done. Cops in the US don't just kill or cause the deaths of people by shooting. They show a pattern of behavior and attitudes that contribute to the deaths of people they try to arrest or have arrested. Some of this can absolutely be addressed through training but also requires the implementation and enforcement of rules such as "don't shoot like an idiot at vehicles" and "take proper care of sick and/or injured people even if they are mentally ill and you'd prefer to go Lewk on their asses". It requires punishment or at least reliable investigations because, even if you don't get convicted, it can be enough of a hassle to make you think twice. It requires the removal of crappy incentives (both on the part of the police and their comrades in the courts etc) to hassle people in order to find minor offenses that can help keep the coffers filled and to meet quotas, ie. to fund the goddamn' police adequately.

[Steely Glint]

The solution is of course gun control. Repeal the Second Amendment, take guns out of circulation, away from the criminals and the number of murders in America would plummet. As would the number of cops dying and the number of people the cops think are armed who die too. Maybe then like in the UK American cops could then be disarmed and not carry anything more than a taser as part of their standard equipment.

Good luck with that.

[RandBlade]

Now I see where Piers Morgan gets it.

Sorry Rand, the 2nd Amendment is not going anywhere, so please stop putting it forward as an option.

Guns being used to kill is a symptom of something in our society not the cause.

No it is the cause. It is the one and only thing that is materially different to explain the vast, vast discrepancy in homicide rates (and thus cop related deaths etc too). It is also entirely logical that if you make a tool for easy killing readily available it will be readily used in the way it was designed to be used. To kill.

You may accept all symptoms of that cause. You may not be prepared to accept the repeal of the second amendment. But unless and until you are prepared to tackle the root cause of this crisis we are just pissing in the wind dealing with symptoms.

[Loki]

Is your next solution going provide a way to get rid of ISIS by requiring all ISIS members to undergo counseling?

[RandBlade]

That is a solution that will literally never be implemented in the US. Barring that solution, there are a number of things that can be done. Cops in the US don't just kill or cause the deaths of people by shooting. They show a pattern of behavior and attitudes that contribute to the deaths of people they try to arrest or have arrested. Some of this can absolutely be addressed through training but also requires the implementation and enforcement of rules such as "don't shoot like an idiot at vehicles" and "take proper care of sick and/or injured people even if they are mentally ill and you'd prefer to go Lewk on their asses". It requires punishment or at least reliable investigations because, even if you don't get convicted, it can be enough of a hassle to make you think twice. It requires the removal of crappy incentives (both on the part of the police and their comrades in the courts etc) to hassle people in order to find minor offenses that can help keep the coffers filled and to meet quotas, ie. to fund the goddamn' police adequately.

It requires not being killed if you don't shoot first. That is the problem. As long as cops fear for their own lives rightly, as long as cups have known friends and colleagues who've been shot and injured or killed then they will be on guard.

Most of what you just wrote about like finding minor offences are utterly irrelevant. People aren't being shot in large numbers over minor traffic violations but because someone is perceived as violent and threatening.

[RandBlade]

Is your next solution going provide a way to get rid of ISIS by requiring all ISIS members to undergo counseling?

Yes the belief in guns and the second amendment is a bit like a fanatical religious belief. The only way to overcome the beliefs in such misplaced ignorance is to take it on. If you don't argue against what is wrong then change will never happen. Who knows, one day change could occur - I imagine when the prohibition of alcohol amendment was passed it's repeal seemed implausible too.

[Aimless]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...xcessive-fines

[Aimless]

http://www.npr.org/2015/07/04/420019...e-mentally-ill

[Aimless]

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mljsp0013st_sum.pdf

[Lewkowski]

http://www.npr.org/2015/07/04/420019...e-mentally-ill

This isn't a surprise. Mentally ill people are far more likely to react violently. Also since liberals and their changing definitions of mentally ill have led to our country having '1 in 5 Americans' have a mental illness. So really 1/4th compared to 1/5th isn't that much of a stretch.

[Aimless]

Re. your observation about everyone making mistakes, you are absolutely correct. There are many ways to tackle that problem.

You asked if I have ever made mistakes and I have, as have all my colleagues. Preventing illness from occurring in the first place is certainly one way to reduce the likelihood of dying as a consequence of a medical mistake. But we can't always accomplish that to a sufficiently great extent. Other methods center around the principle of not acting or thinking in ways that will increase the likelihood of making a dangerous or unnecessary mistake. So it's good if people are healthy and don't have to come to the ER or the hospital, but if they do, it's also good if we don't routinely use a sledgehammer, if we manage to stay calm, if we have a plan, if we work systematically, if we work as a team, if we learn ways to make a situation less dangerous and urgent, etc.

Police officers in the US seem to be bad at several of these things, at least in the cases where their actions lead to someone's death. They act in ways that increase their likelihood of feeling forced to use lethal force. They escalate situations instead of de-escalating them. They unnecessarily seek out encounters that have a risk of going sideways. They have bad or non-existant arrest-plans. They put themselves in avoidable dangerous situations. They would not be so inclined, perhaps, if they were held to specific standards of good practice.

[Aimless]

This isn't a surprise. Mentally ill people are far more likely to react violently. Also since liberals and their changing definitions of mentally ill have led to our country having '1 in 5 Americans' have a mental illness. So really 1/4th compared to 1/5th isn't that much of a stretch.

Lewk I thought we agreed you wouldn't talk about stuff you don't know anything about. The prevalence of mental illness in the general population includes disorders where the vast majority do not predispose someone to acting violent. Nor is that an excuse given that people can learn skills for de-escalating many situations involving agitated people with psychiatric problems.

[Lewkowski]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...xcessive-fines

That article actually has a good point about excessive nanny state fees/fines. But it begins with an absolutely atrocious example. The example was not paying child support... which isn't a fine used to bolster revenues for cities like the rest of the article talks about. Surely they could have come up with a real example that fit their position? Sloppy.

[Lewkowski]

Lewk I thought we agreed you wouldn't talk about stuff you don't know anything about. The prevalence of mental illness in the general population includes disorders where the vast majority do not predispose someone to acting violent. Nor is that an excuse given that people can learn skills for de-escalating many situations involving agitated people with psychiatric problems.

Going after two cops with a knife... that's pretty crazy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6604458.html

Mental illness absolutely can lead to violence - and again if 1/5 are mentally ill that ratio isn't far off from 1/4 so I fail to see your point. Unless of course you agree that 1/5 is off base and then we might have something to agree with on.

[Aimless]

Wow are you retarded or what. The question isn't whether or not psychiatric problems can ever lead to violent behavior but rather what how many people with psychiatric problems are likely to be so violent and how often.

[Enoch the Red]

No it is the cause. It is the one and only thing that is materially different to explain the vast, vast discrepancy in homicide rates (and thus cop related deaths etc too). It is also entirely logical that if you make a tool for easy killing readily available it will be readily used in the way it was designed to be used. To kill.

You may accept all symptoms of that cause. You may not be prepared to accept the repeal of the second amendment. But unless and until you are prepared to tackle the root cause of this crisis we are just pissing in the wind dealing with symptoms.

If you are saying the only material difference is gun ownership, then the rates of gun ownership in Switzerland and Canada kind of blow that theory out of the water. It is patently ridiculous and myopic to say the only material difference between two different countries is the rate of gun ownership.

[RandBlade]

If you are saying the only material difference is gun ownership, then the rates of gun ownership in Switzerland and Canada kind of blow that theory out of the water. It is patently ridiculous and myopic to say the only material difference between two different countries is the rate of gun ownership.

Switzerland is not a real country (no offence earthJoker) so lets not mess around with that, though even then Switzerland's gun ownership rate is about half of America's. Canada's gun ownership rate is about a third of America's so it doesn't simply blow the theory out of the water - on top of that there are very different controls on types of firearms and also ammunition sales etc to in the USA.

What do you propose are major material differences between America and the rest of the western and English-speaking world other than guns being so freely available?

[Enoch the Red]

Switzerland is not a real country (no offence earthJoker) so lets not mess around with that

Switzerland doesn't count because it doesn't count? If your argument is the only material difference between countries is the rate of gun ownership, and Switzerland and Canada (and Norway for that matter) have a high rate of gun ownership without a comparable number of firearm homicides, then perhaps there are other important differences, in addition to the material differences you went on to name, that you are neglecting to factor in.

...though even then Switzerland's gun ownership rate is about half of America's. Canada's gun ownership rate is about a third of America's so it doesn't simply blow the theory out of the water - on top of that there are very different controls on types of firearms and also ammunition sales etc to in the USA.

Are you using guns per capita to indicate rates of gun ownership? The differences in reported rates of ownership aren't even close to what you are citing, though I confess I have my doubts about the quality, methodology, and age of those surveys. Regardless, it is a completely different metric from gun ownership rates. Unless you believe that the quantity of guns a person owns somehow makes them more likely become a criminal.

What do you propose are major material differences between America and the rest of the western and English-speaking world other than guns being so freely available?

I think what I'm proposing is that material differences aren't the only, or even necessarily the primary factor that need to be considered. If you look at the basic cultural and historical differences, differences in the types and numbers of firearms owned (long guns versus handguns), the amount of cultural diversity and how integration is handled within the society, the war against drugs and other failed criminal policies (both on a strategic and tactical level), a large and relatively porous border with a troubled state, socioeconomic and any number of other differences that impact crime rates in a country you'll begin to see that boiling a very complex question down to a single material difference is the definition of myopic.

[Loki]

I believe we might also be the only country with grand juries, which certainly contributes to police recklessness, as it provides an extra obstacle before cops can be charged (a usually insurmountable obstacle). The rather poor relations between minority communities and the police forces that are meant to serve them (which are rarely composed of a similar proportion of minority officers) doesn't help either.