As a complete outsider to US reality, to me looking in, it seems like there is a real issue of training regarding de-escalating techniques.
US police forces seem to have a very short training which, as far as I understand is not centrally vetted by any federal organism? And considering the short training time it seems to be mostly focused on tactical and firearm training.
Compare that with European forces and you see a completely different reality. In Europe the police is generally seen as peace-keepers, force is absolutely a last resort (probably not so true for crowd control units but certainly true for daily policing).
> US police forces seem to have a very short training
Correct; some states have laws mandating training hours for barbers that are longer than that mandated for police [0].
> not centrally vetted by any federal organism
As with many things in the US, these rules are mostly state-based (read: 50 different, often overlapping but also often contradictory systems) but with a patchwork of federal oversight.
For example, in 2012, the federal government stepped in with a judicial document called a "consent decree" aimed at reforming the Seattle police department after "a pattern or practice of excessive force that violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law" [1].
That's an example of federal oversight, but it only happens after problems have already occurred; it only applies to the city of Seattle; and it's temporary. Only a month ago [2] the city was in court petitioning for "we're all better now, federal oversight can end".
After saying in court they were reformed and would no longer use excessive force, Seattle PD used so much tear gas in a residential neighborhood that it seeped into peoples' homes [3]. Then they announced a 30 day ban on use of tear gas [4]. Then about 48 hours later they used tear gas anyway (after using "blast balls" containing "pepper spray gas" the previous night and insisting it didn't count as tear gas). Finally a federal judge stepped in [5] and issued a 14 day ban on its use - another example of our federal oversight being reactive and not proactive.
Oh, and did I mention Seattle PD shot a "less-lethal" grenade round directly at a protester, causing enough blunt force trauma to stop her heart and require life-saving CPR? [6] That was on the same night they used tear gas after promising not to.
And they threw flashbang grenades at the medics who were trying to save her life. [7]
(in case it's not obvious, I'm a Seattle resident and I'm pissed)
Another example of how complicated our justice system can be that might surprise people from other countries is all the levels of police forces we have - city police / county sheriff / state police (plus federal law enforcement - FBI, TSA, border patrol, and so on). Especially in rural areas the county sheriff often wields a tremendous amount of power [8].
you're entirely warranted to be pissed about tear gas use, but it's misguided to expect quick and accurate federal redress, as the executive function intentionally doesn't cover state or local jurisdictions.
states run themselves, and the federal judiciary basically only steps in when state/local governments don't follow their own rules (the presumed expression of the will of the people) or violate the constitution. the constrained executive response follows from the judiciary (and sometimes the legislature).
and that's the way it should be. you want power local and limited, not consolidated and far away. that would only make things like use of force worse.
so the immediate appeal to authority should be to the local, and then state, judiciary and legislature stepping in with corrective actions. the feds aren't of much use here. they're intentionally a line of last (and slow) resort.
Why would people want power local and limited? Noting the sordid history of local, "States Rights", Jim Crow style policies that exist at the local level. Especially when the issue concerns US policing which is the ideological descendant of slave patrols.
Sheriffs date back to the early 1300s. Even up until the 1970s, small communities had local militias and army reserves when things got beyond what a sheriff could handle. Most of these places switched to policing in the late 70s and 80s. How, precisely is that "the ideological descendent of slave patrols"?
I'm generally for states' rights, but the federal government stepping in to enforce civil rights in the face of local corruption has a long and storied history. Furthermore, the consent decree was already in place, so yes, enforcement should have been pretty quick and should actually have teeth to get these criminals prosecuted.
> "Maybe in your country but in many, many places in the world this is demonstrably not the case."
as with markets, idiosyncratic conditions like sociopathy can lead to pockets of undue concentrations of power, no doubt.
but it would be even worse if those same conditions were concentrated on and elevated to wider populations. by distributing power, you can more effectively pit one against the other, and have some chance of bettering conditions over time. those chances decrease with power concentration.
This is a really important point and you are right that the level of gun violence is abysmally higher in the US.
Nevertheless, a large percentage of situations can be de-escalated by police forces. What is even less acceptable, is that in many cases the escalation is originating from police officers. Which is why, to me, de-escalation and conflict management training is lacking among these officers.
Going back to your point, it is a really complex issue and I am not going to claim a deep understanding of US society.
There is a huge percentage of GDP spent on welfare in most EU countries, the welfare and safety nets put in place are (mostly) accepted in the EU because of a sense of solidarity and dignity and a mutual understanding that _anyone_ can be caught in a situation where they are facing social/family/health/finacial issues. Being misfortunate should not be punished with falling through the cracks of society. I get the impression that in the US this type of belief would be an outlier.
However, putting aside the humanitarian values, there is a very practical and utilitarian aspect to EU welfare and social benefits programs, they actually detract people from marginal behaviour because it stops them from being pushed into a corner.
There is a lot of evidence that social welfare safety nets reduce crime. Equally, there is evidence that insufficient welfare correlates with crime rise. [0]
And this I think, is a huge cultural shift. The outrage in the US would be huge if we tried to rationalize that we have to take tax money from everyone, to give free-money to people on the fringes of society, in order to reduce gun violence. However, all the EU policies for the past 40 years confirm this reasoning.
IMO, the issue is that the US Police are not one organization. There are over 10,000 police departments in America. In some towns, the Sheriff + Deputies are less than 10 people.
Some towns have a Sheriff who is democratically elected. This leads to massive lack of accountability, because there's no chance the Sheriff could be fired before the next election.
Under such a system, why would a Sheriff, or their deputies, ever get deescalation training?
-------------
Washington DC serves as a great example of how confusing this gets when you start actually tracing the power structures.
The shear amount of "blame shifting" going on for the Lafayette Park clearing is staggering.
> More than a half-dozen officials from the National Guard, federal law enforcement and public safety agencies have challenged the Trump administration's narrative that the clearing of peaceful protesters outside the White House earlier this month was unrelated to President Donald Trump's subsequent walk to a nearby church for a photo-op, The Washington Post reported Sunday.
...
> But officials told The Post they weren't warned that US Park Police planned to push the perimeter or that force would be used.
...
> The US Secret Service issued a statement Saturday admitting that an agency employee used pepper spray on June 1 during efforts to secure Lafayette Square and clear protesters.
> US Park Police, Arlington Police, DC Metro Police and the Secret Service have all denied using any kind of chemical irritants in Lafayette Square Monday evening. But WUSA9 crews were there, witnessed tear gas being deployed and collected the canisters afterward.
So at a minimum, there are ~5 Police Forces, each with different accountability structures, involved in the Lafyette Square clearing. It probably was only ONE Police Force that messed up (probably US Park Police??) that was the site of the brutal beatdown.
But all the different organizations get the blame, even if the officers are of completely different organizations.
------------
US Citizens typically have to deal with ~3 police organizations per location. The city (or county) police, the state police, and finally the federal police.
And the Feds are organized into multiple different police: DEA, ATF, FBI, and ICE.
There's a "weak" culture... the "thin blue line" where Police Officers do stand to protect each other, even if they are from different organizations. But when it comes to accepting the blame, they actually shift the blame between each other a lot. So you need to be very knowledgeable about your local police structure before you can even cast blame in a proper manner.
Even if some organizations are considered good (ie: FBI generally has a very good reputation), other organizations (ie: ICE) have a pretty negative reputation in unwanted use of force.
------
Finally, a little example for how confusing this can get.
-- If you have a Sheriff, your only means of accountability is the election next year. A Sheriff and their deputies can pretty much do whatever they want. Any issues must be taken up with the Sheriff themselves in the meantime. If the Sheriff is uncooperative, you're left with voting them out next election (which is surprisingly difficult, because no one pays attention to local politics in America).
-- A Police "Chief" is typically a position that is held accountable by the Mayor. You can ask the Chief for police reforms, but traditionally people complain to the Mayor instead. IMO, this is a bit better than the Sheriff positions, since the Mayor can run on a platform of police reform in theory.
-- A Police Commissioner is held accountable by the City's Board. You need to convince a majority of the board member that there is a problem. Even if you convince your local board member that there's a problem, they will hold no power unless you convince the majority of the board.
-- Some municipalities, such as NYPD, have a citizen complain board, who are the dedicated organization to hear complaints. They'll issue lawyers to citizens who complain about issues to individually represent citizens in court. In these municipalities, the best action you'll get is from the citizen review board.
Washington DC is unusual because it's not a state, and in practice it's the only place where the President can order the police about directly.
You would expect directly elected police to increase accountability, but the question as always is: to whom? If the local electorate is racist, they're going to support racist violence from the police.
The very large number of police organisations produces some stupidities, like a tiny "city" that's mostly funded by stopping people going 1 mile over the speed limit on the nearby highway, but almost all the big problems are the big unitary police forces of the big cities: New York, Chicago, LA, etc.
> You would expect directly elected police to increase accountability
I don't. I have a sheriff and I barely keep up with the issue between elections. And to be honest, local police in my area are a non-issue, I've never had issues with them personally. (IMO: this is because I live in a richer suburban area. Police are well paid, college-educated, and low-stress compared to the city police)
Between the county council, my city's mayor, the state governor, the state representative, the state senator, my US Senator, my US Representative, the President, the School superintendant, roughly 4 or 5 different judges, and the sheriff... I'm frankly leaving most of my election sheet blank during elections.
Besides, the Sheriff has been running unopposed for the last decade. Even if there was an issue, its not like there's even another guy for me to vote for.
I'd have much more trust in a Chief or Commissioner setup. I at least know the name of my county executive and somewhat keep up with what my county executive does.
But the only way you can convince me that my local police, that I'm voting for directly, has any issue, is if protests erupted in my local neighborhood. A lot of these videos that are being posted online do not apply to me or my vote.
> The very large number of police organisations produces some stupidities, like a tiny "city" that's mostly funded by stopping people going 1 mile over the speed limit on the nearby highway, but almost all the big problems are the big unitary police forces of the big cities: New York, Chicago, LA, etc.
Is it really? Think about it. The NYC officers who shoved the man were fired pretty quickly. While its basically impossible to fire a Sheriff.
Hypothetically, how would you convince me or raise awareness if my local sheriff was a problem? No major protests were in my neighborhood.
And I'm somewhat connected and informed about these matters. I've got friends who are fully ignorant, or are even 100% on the police side on this issue. How do you expect to convince them to vote for a new sheriff?
Sounds to me like your sheriff might be doing a good job and the system might be working. Now if you had a sheriff that were a real problem and still couldn't get voted out, then you'd have an example of a broken system.
Most sheriffs in USA are unopposed. Even if they do a bad job, you don't really have a choice in the vote.
Its not really a system I'm a fan of. The voting population only can pay attention to so many issues, we should have our representatives pick (and hold accountable) more positions.
I'm not sure your interpretation is required or adds value. Those with first hand experience have been protesting for over 100 years and have been very clear. Law enforcement needs more August Vollmers.
US police forces seem to have a very short training which, as far as I understand is not centrally vetted by any federal organism? And considering the short training time it seems to be mostly focused on tactical and firearm training.
Compare that with European forces and you see a completely different reality. In Europe the police is generally seen as peace-keepers, force is absolutely a last resort (probably not so true for crowd control units but certainly true for daily policing).