If you are at risk (or scared), then don't go out. You quarantine the sick, not the healthy. (Although you get an A+ in modern thinking. SUE!! SUE!!! SUE!!!!!!)

People always whine about the ones in office, but you mustn't forget that those were chosen by a majority of people who see things the same way.
Change has to start with the people. So that's slightly different, it's not about voting them out, it's about people having to change.

The US has a helluva lot of problems, one of which is the B & W issue that's been going on for as long as American has been founded. Lord knows how to change that. There's always a lot of good people on both sides, unfortunately the ones that aren't so nice to the other party are more powerful.
Both B & W would have to change and become willing and open towards the other party. Black people discriminate just the same, there's even whole areas where white people cannot go for their own safety. That chit has to change.

Another HUGE problem in the US, probably mostly in the southern states, is religion.

Then there's other major problems, like healthcare, proper housing for everyone so people don't live on the streets, in shambles, or caravans anymore.
Good minimum wages, automatically getting days off when you work etc etc. All arranged by law.

None of these are easy things to sort as everyone is use to how it is, feels entitled, is resistant to change, and so on and so forth.
I'm glad I'm not the one who has to sort it out.
But it's like I said before on here: the world won't get stable until the US sorts its chit out. Not because you are überpowerful like many Americans think, but because you are part of a whole, a cog. The whole cannot work properly if a cog is still stuck or broken.

Let's hope it'll work itself out, sooner rather than later.
And none of this btw is meant to be offensive. Just reality.

I agree. We also acknowledge what it costs in a region to pay for basic living expenses like rent/mortgage, gas, electric, internet, phone, food, and whether pay in that region is enough to sustain it. And we need to acknowledge which jobs are actually open in a region and how much competition there is for those jobs. That acknowledgment, I think, would follow with the acknowledgment that it is not so simple to just 'get a job', if the purpose of working is to have basic living expenses.

It is when that wage is set by the masters and not by living standards.I agree though that people will always disagree on their subjective views about what people 'should' be able to do and what they 'could' do for themself.

Making profits off of the work of others is the comparison. That is a bit more complex than merely 'self reliance' or 'caring for oneself'. Self reliance is great, but rarely the simple absolute that the cliche implies. People rely on people. No one lives in a bubble.

I don't know if that is true. Slavery wasnt exactly 'self reliance' and 'caring for oneself' A lot of knowing how to exploit others for the benefit of oneself was involved in that founding, and is still involved in maintaining the status quo, IMHO.

I think, when push comes to shove, the difference is the skin color and being able to relate to "us vs "them".

I think it is a different cultural mentality. I think violence begets violence mostly. Less violence begets less violence, like a cycle. Treat people as a threat, and they start expecting to be seen as a threat, and making poor choices to defend themselves from that. I think also that the UK is much more whitewashed in many places than America, making it easy to see the bad apples as still 'one of us', than here in the US where there are more types of minorities that can be seen as 'them'.

These are just thoughts, of course. But I find many countries that have policies that would be decried as 'socialist' here do seem to have more regard for human life and caring about the community and not just the self.

That seems like a difference between intentionally letting someone go and perform something that is a threat to others, and losing someone who is only 'possibly' going to perform something. Big difference. I am sure the law has plenty of discretion on what a cop 'can' do.

My compassion even falls for poor choices and stupidity, when it comes to death. I have not been free from poor choices or stupid things myself. And I did not and should not expect the death penalty for it. IMHO. When it comes to poor choices and poverty, that is not a call I have the ego to make for strangers. For me, if the effort is being made, help is the human way to respond, especially if it involves children who don't get the choice.

I've seen the quietest people you could meet resist arrest before. Doesn't mean they deserve to be killed, or shot though for doing so. People react differently, to things. If what you said here is what you really believe, then you really have a strange way of viewing the World. Compassion and common sense, are sorely lacking in your mindset, believe me!

I have personally not heard of such lawsuits being waged or won either.

People, in the end, get held responsible for their own crimes. The answer is not death to avoid lawsuits that would try to argue differently, especially not one that would argue they should kill a person rather than let them run away and 'possibly' cause a car accident or commit some other crime. AS long as they make reasonable effort to DETAIN, (not kill) there is no liability.

I agree with harmony ... I expect the officer to

Be trained in risk assessment , conflict resolution and to safely engage in challenging situations .

To recognise when they do not have control of a situation .. to back down if safety is compromised or call for backup .

To use appropriate deescalation techniques and culturally safe communication.

To know how to safely defend themselves when there is a physiological difference or threat .

To React professionally and ethically .

George Floyd complained of feeling claustrophobic ...( a condition often associated with panic and fear ...) he was “pulled “ from the vehicle ... I would expect the risk assessment of that situation to consider the consequence of his state of mind and functioning at that point .

He did not have a weapon .. he was not combative or aggressive . Why they felt the need to restrain him in the manner they did is not clear . I am sure their rationale and motivation will come out in the legal proceedings .