Conflict erupts at Minneapolis, L.A. protests over George Floyd death

[LaCroix]

Even European Countries like France Germany and the UK have police forces. They aren't going away for better or ill.

I suggest you brush up on the European police model. Our officers are disciplined and sometimes getting fired for even drawing their guns if not absolutely necessary. Drawing. Firing is even harsher reviewed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_k ... in_Germany
In the last 70 years, in all of Germany (80 million inhabitants) killed less than 500 people.
And each and every one of them is documented and went through a lenghty judicial review...

I think that kind of police force is what you would want to have...

[mr friendly guy]

https://thehill.com/homenews/502021-new ... ing-george

New Jersey corrections officer suspended, FedEx employee fired after mocking George Floyd death
BY JUSTIN WISE - 06/10/20 10:00 AM EDT

A New Jersey corrections officer has been suspended and a FedEx employee was fired Tuesday after video showed them mocking the death of George Floyd, a black man who died in police custody in Minneapolis.

Footage first surfaced on Monday of the two reenacting Floyd's death as a crowd of protesters marched in a Black Lives Matter demonstration in Franklin Township, N.J. The video, which quickly went viral on Twitter, showed a white man shouting at protesters as he kneeled on the back of another man's neck.

"This is what happens," the man shouted as other men stood in front of trucks adorned with banners supporting President Trump and a sign saying, "All Lives Matter."

"Comply with the cops," the man said.

Floyd, 46, died on May 25 after a white Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes as Floyd said, "I can't breathe." The officer, Derek Chauvin, has since been charged with second-degree murder.

The New Jersey Department of Corrections said Tuesday afternoon that it was made aware one of its officers participated in a "hateful and disappointing" video that mocked Floyd. The department said that the individual has been suspended and banned from department facilities pending an investigation into his behavior. The department did not name the person involved.

"We thank the community for bringing this issue to our attention," the department said.

FedEx later said in a tweet late Tuesday that an employee involved in the mocking of Floyd was fired.

"FedEx holds its team members to a high standard of personal conduct and we do not tolerate the kind of appalling and offensive behavior depicted in the video," the company said. "We stand with those who support justice and equality."

Floyd's death in police custody spurred protests across the nation, as well as calls from activists and lawmakers to address systemic racism in law enforcement. Daryan Fennal, who organized the protest in Franklin Township, told a local NBC affiliate that the mocking of Floyd's death demonstrated that "racism is real, racism is alive, it's right next door to you.”

Franklin Township Mayor John Bruno and Police Chief Brian Zimmer said in a joint statement that they were “appalled and saddened by the revolting actions of certain individuals.”

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) also condemned the behavior on Tuesday, saying in a statement that "mocking Floyd’s murder in effort to belittle the calls for justice from our Black and Brown communities is repugnant."

"We won’t let the actions of a few distract from our progress toward dismantling systemic racism," he added.

[Vendetta]

The problem with cutting funding to police departments is, they'll just increase their enforcement of stuff that results in fines and the like. That would increase the amount of money they bring in, and give them a reason to go to city council "And now, imagine if you increased our budget!"

The thing about "defunding" is that it isn't just "cutting funding to police departments", it's dissolving those police departments and replacing them with successor entities which have a greatly reduced scope, allowing a new culture of operation to be built from the ground up.

Police culture is one of the biggest problems that need fixing. Culture that is built up from the academy onwards and reinforced by bullshit like "warrior training" that emphasises an "us-vs-them" mentality between police and public and instils police with a sense of superiority. That's one of the reasons police in the US focus so much on immediate compliance, because they have a cultural mentality that they are entitled to tell the public what to do and entitled to immediate compliance not because they're currently serving a public interest but because they've got the badge and uniform that says you comply now.

You can't fix that with new training, officers will show up, check out, and not change.

You can't fix it with external disciplinary oversight because the culture will protect its members through silence, and through denial.

Chronic overpolicing is another major problem, and we've got a fine example in this very thread. George Floyd was killed by police for allegedly trying to use a counterfeit bank note. Something which the police shouldn't even be involved in dealing with and certainly not one where any form of forcing compliance should ever have been necessary, it's a purely administrative crime that should have been dealt with from a desk and in a magistrate's court.

Likewise Eric Garner, killed for selling individual cigarettes and depriving the taxman of a few cents. Not a crime which should involved the police.

And again, you can't fix that with training or disciplinary boards.

You can fix those things by removing the police from policing, and rebuilding successor organisations with cultures that better fit the needs they fulfil.

[loomer]

I'd strongly urge people interested in the finer points of defunding and/or abolishing the police (arguments for the latter don't perfectly map to the former but there are, unsurprisingly, some pretty big commonalities in the core issues both approaches want to address) to take the time to read some of these resources or at least listen to this interview or some speeches by Angela Davis.

As Vendetta points out, defunding isn't just saying to the police 'make your own damn money' - it's about fundamental justice reform to alter the role of the police in society in a way that goes hand in hand with massive social investment using the liberated funds. There's an enormous body of scholarship out there just waiting for anyone new to it to take a day or two to read up on.

[Solauren]

The problem with cutting funding to police departments is, they'll just increase their enforcement of stuff that results in fines and the like. That would increase the amount of money they bring in, and give them a reason to go to city council "And now, imagine if you increased our budget!"

The thing about "defunding" is that it isn't just "cutting funding to police departments", it's dissolving those police departments and replacing them with successor entities which have a greatly reduced scope, allowing a new culture of operation to be built from the ground up.

Did you read my entire post, or just the opening line? I argued it wouldn't work, and then listed things I've seen mentioned that would probably be better. One of them was closing all local police departments, and having State Police take over.

[Darth Yan]

Even European Countries like France Germany and the UK have police forces. They aren't going away for better or ill.

I suggest you brush up on the European police model. Our officers are disciplined and sometimes getting fired for even drawing their guns if not absolutely necessary. Drawing. Firing is even harsher reviewed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_k ... in_Germany
In the last 70 years, in all of Germany (80 million inhabitants) killed less than 500 people.
And each and every one of them is documented and went through a lenghty judicial review...

I think that kind of police force is what you would want to have...

Interesting to know. My point is that there are large organized units even if they aren’t militarized

[The Romulan Republic]

I think that's a very important point in the "abolish vs don't abolish the police" discussion- that there are highly effective models for policing other than the American one.

Whether it would be possible to implement those models in America, I don't know. It would probably require rebuilding a lot of departments from the ground up.

[Ralin]

It's like Wong was saying the other day on Facebook about body cams. No they haven't proven ineffective. They haven't been effectively enforced because cops can just turn the damned things off and get away with it. We haven't exhausted the potentials for reform because we haven't done nearly enough in terms of firing entire major metropolitan police departments and replacing them with new people from scratch.

Speaking in terms of solutions that do not involve radically altering the nature of the state and modern society, I figure a good place to start would be breaking up the functions of police into multiple separate organizations. Have one group that acts as traffic wardens, and nothing else. Have an organization of unarmed detectives who investigate crimes after the fact. Have a sort of town guard organization to step in and deal with stabbing sprees/guy who just beat the shit out of a prostitute for fun/Florida Man. Make sure they're unarmed and drill it into their heads that their goal is to make sure everyone goes home unhurt as much as possible (this may be easier said than done, but it's a place to start). Have a small armed group of manhunters called in to arrest specific people and act as SWAT when it's genuinely necessary. Etc.

There's no reason why the people who direct traffic at football games should come from the same pool of people who carry guns and have an effective license to kill. It would probably be emotionally healthier for the cops themselves too. Less range of responsibility means less need to project constant I AM IN CHARGE SHOW ME YOUR HANDS alpha dick rays.

[Solauren]

It's like Wong was saying the other day on Facebook about body cams. No they haven't proven ineffective. They haven't been effectively enforced because cops can just turn the damned things off and get away with it. We haven't exhausted the potentials for reform because we haven't done nearly enough in terms of firing entire major metropolitan police departments and replacing them with new people from scratch.

Agreed. As I said previously, all instants with that happening, fire them for not caring for /properly using the equipment, charge them with whatever is being investigated, and let a jury decide their fate. If the union screams about it, point out it's now national policy, and tell them they can argue it, AFTER the officer is cleared in a court of law.

After the first few get fired and end up in court for stuff they used to get away with, the rest of them might clue in that 'Damn, I need to behave'

[Ralin]

After the first few get fired and end up in court for stuff they used to get away with, the rest of them might clue in that 'Damn, I need to behave'

I feel like in many cases that's too light on the 'fire all of them and make a new department from scratch,' but again, gotta start somewhere.

[Captain Seafort]

Have a sort of town guard organization to step in and deal with stabbing sprees/guy who just beat the shit out of a prostitute for fun/Florida Man. Make sure they're unarmed and drill it into their heads that their goal is to make sure everyone goes home unhurt as much as possible (this may be easier said than done, but it's a place to start).

Would this work in the US? My perspective of the problem as a Brit, and therefore an outsider, is that the root cause of the problem is the tendency of US police to resort to extreme violence at a very early stage of any interaction. This cannot have arisen in a vacuum, and I suspect at least part of the problem is the prevalence of, and attitude towards, firearms in the US. If any interaction with the public has a non-trivial possibility of escalating to the copper leaving in a body bag, the copper's primary concern going into any such interaction will be making sure that doesn't happen. No amount of training will override that fundamental instinct towards self-preservation. Even sacking every last cop in the US and rebuilding from the ground up wouldn't work, because the environment that lead to the development of this police culture would not have changed, and something very similar would therefore develop organically.

[Jub]

Would this work in the US? My perspective of the problem as a Brit, and therefore an outsider, is that the root cause of the problem is the tendency of US police to resort to extreme violence at a very early stage of any interaction. This cannot have arisen in a vacuum, and I suspect at least part of the problem is the prevalence of, and attitude towards, firearms in the US. If any interaction with the public has a non-trivial possibility of escalating to the copper leaving in a body bag, the copper's primary concern going into any such interaction will be making sure that doesn't happen. No amount of training will override that fundamental instinct towards self-preservation. Even sacking every last cop in the US and rebuilding from the ground up wouldn't work, because the environment that lead to the development of this police culture would not have changed, and something very similar would therefore develop organically.

Isn't the solution to this to let the community decide what they want the police to police and de-escalating things that way? The police often go looking for things to do to justify their department's budget and cool toys. If they just let the minor things slide, especially a lot of 'black' crime, they'd be put in a lot less sketchy situations overall. If criminals interacting with cops didn't just get a one-way ticket to the slammer and police had leeway in what approach to take to criminal behavior then police could get to the root of what causes crime and actually make an impact in crime rates for once.

Solving crime isn't about catching and punishing people after the fact it's about identifying risk factors and dealing with the reasons why people turn to crime in the first place.

[The Romulan Republic]

It's like Wong was saying the other day on Facebook about body cams. No they haven't proven ineffective. They haven't been effectively enforced because cops can just turn the damned things off and get away with it. We haven't exhausted the potentials for reform because we haven't done nearly enough in terms of firing entire major metropolitan police departments and replacing them with new people from scratch.

Speaking in terms of solutions that do not involve radically altering the nature of the state and modern society, I figure a good place to start would be breaking up the functions of police into multiple separate organizations. Have one group that acts as traffic wardens, and nothing else. Have an organization of unarmed detectives who investigate crimes after the fact. Have a sort of town guard organization to step in and deal with stabbing sprees/guy who just beat the shit out of a prostitute for fun/Florida Man. Make sure they're unarmed and drill it into their heads that their goal is to make sure everyone goes home unhurt as much as possible (this may be easier said than done, but it's a place to start). Have a small armed group of manhunters called in to arrest specific people and act as SWAT when it's genuinely necessary. Etc.

There's no reason why the people who direct traffic at football games should come from the same pool of people who carry guns and have an effective license to kill. It would probably be emotionally healthier for the cops themselves too. Less range of responsibility means less need to project constant I AM IN CHARGE SHOW ME YOUR HANDS alpha dick rays.

If I was going to reform (as opposed to abolish/defund) police, my first thought would be to make it a felony and an automatic firing offense for an officer to turn off or tamper with a bodycam.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I think Captain Seafort has a very good point here (though as another Brit I may have a biased view in that regard). The fact is that in America, any cop going into an encounter with the public knows there is a non-trivial chance that the member of the public is (legally) better-armed (and possibly more practiced) than they are. That's gonna skew your thought process massively. It's almost going to put you in the mindset of soldiers occupying an enemy city - there could be enemies everywhere, they could be just as well-armed if not better, and they probably don't like you very much.

Compare that to Britain, where for the average copper on the street the chances of being confronted with an actual firearm are extremely slender - a knife, bat or broken bottle is much more likely, but you have a stab vest and a sturdy truncheon with the same range to handle that.

[Jub]

If I was going to reform (as opposed to abolish/defund) police, my first thought would be to make it a felony and an automatic firing offense for an officer to turn off or tamper with a bodycam.

Then how would you deal with the inevitable cases of equipment failure, accidental obstruction of the camera, and other issues that come from taking such a black and white stance on body cameras? I agree that they should be mandatory, working, and unobstructed, but there are legitimate reasons for all of the above and a one-size-fits-all punishment will only make police further resent being saddled with something that can get them fired through no fault of their own.

[Bedlam]

- Independent civilian review organization, that handles all reviews of the police of any kind, even if the police handle the matter themselves usually.
i.e complaint about police brutality, incidents where a cop is hurt/a cop hurts or kills someone, etc. They get full access, and anyone that doesn't co-operate with them, loses their job. The Civilian review organizations decision take weight over the police's decision. (So, if the police say 'nah, that wasn't brutality, and the civilians disagree, then the justice system ignores the police decision.) In cases where a certain department/group of reviews and the civilians are always at odds, fire that department/group of reviewers.

There probably already are sure organisations around but who would you staff the organisation with? Would it be an elected role? Legal professionals? As it would involve a investigative role ironically it would see ex-police might be best trained for it.

How would you prevent corruption within the review organisation? Would they themselves have a further review group.

Police do not have a monopoly on bigotry, say after the first year you find that despite say 20% of all officers being black 80% of the officers unilaterally fired for obstruction by the organisation were black, what would you do?

[ray245]

I think Captain Seafort has a very good point here (though as another Brit I may have a biased view in that regard). The fact is that in America, any cop going into an encounter with the public knows there is a non-trivial chance that the member of the public is (legally) better-armed (and possibly more practiced) than they are. That's gonna skew your thought process massively. It's almost going to put you in the mindset of soldiers occupying an enemy city - there could be enemies everywhere, they could be just as well-armed if not better, and they probably don't like you very much.

Compare that to Britain, where for the average copper on the street the chances of being confronted with an actual firearm are extremely slender - a knife, bat or broken bottle is much more likely, but you have a stab vest and a sturdy truncheon with the same range to handle that.

This is why the second amendment is ultimately an issue for policing in the US. There seems to be a strong sense of being self-reliant for your own protection in the US, which means there is a drive towards the escalation of firepower in the US. I recall the scene in Batman Begins, when Gordon talks about escalation.



Yes, the scene is purely fictional, but it does address the deeper psyche of how Americans think about notions of law and order. The popularity of Batman as a superhero, someone who beats up and defeat bad guys through superior firepower does reflect a very American attitude towards combating crime. Getting tough on crime evokes the very Batman/Dredd/Punisher-esque kind of justice, that if you use sufficient force, you can put an end to criminality.

[The Romulan Republic]

Batman's an interesting one in that while on the one hand he seems to embody a very conservative philosophy (the wealthy philanthropist saving the day, vigilantism, combating crime through throwing money and force at the problem), he is also, in most versions, adamantly anti-gun and anti-killing, to the point that he will go out of his way to save the Joker's life. Its also noteworthy that the origin of modern Batman, Year One, is literally a story about him waging war on corrupt, overmilitarized police, as well as on the Mob, and his big victory at the end of that story is helping Gordon force out the corrupt police commissioner.

That clip is also an interesting example, in that Gordon's comments can be seen as warning that Batman's methods, or increased use of police force, will simply feed a cycle of ever-increasing violence and escalation.

Probably the most conservative of the Nolan films is The Dark Knight Rises, which depicts Batman helping to put down 99%/anti-police rioters stirred up by an outsider agitator (Bane)- a plot which has REALLY not aged well. Yet even there, the film critiques Gordon for lying about Dent in order to pass a Tough On Crime law, and concludes with Blake leaving the police force to become a vigilante because he finds the system too corrupt to work within.

Batman has always been a character and story that can be used to argue either side of the police militarization/tough on crime debate. Which is part of why I find modern "reinterpretations" that just write Batman off as a fascist rich man beating up poor/mentally ill people to be a very simplistic take on the character, and politically a waste of a cultural icon who could be coopted to preach a message against police violence and militarization.

I think, in fact, that if any fictional character could effectively bridge the gap from America's past to what we hope America's future will be, it would be Batman. And to some extent we've actually seen Batman adopted as a symbol by protesters (multiple protests have had people show up in Batman costumes- the Philedelphia ones had both a Batman and a Joker on the scene).

[Jub]

Batman's an interesting one in that while on the one hand he seems to embody a very conservative philosophy (the wealthy philanthropist saving the day, vigilantism, combating crime through throwing money and force at the problem), he is also, in most versions, adamantly anti-gun and anti-killing, to the point that he will go out of his way to save the Joker's life. Its also noteworthy that the origin of modern Batman, Year One, is literally a story about him waging war on corrupt, overmilitarized police, as well as on the Mob, and his big victory at the end of that story is helping Gordon force out the corrupt police commissioner.

That clip is also an interesting example, in that Gordon's comments can be seen as warning that Batman's methods, or increased use of police force, will simply feed a cycle of ever-increasing violence and escalation.

Probably the most conservative of the Nolan films is The Dark Knight Rises, which depicts Batman helping to put down 99%/anti-police rioters stirred up by an outsider agitator (Bane)- a plot which has REALLY not aged well. Yet even there, the film critiques Gordon for lying about Dent in order to pass a Tough On Crime law, and concludes with Blake leaving the police force to become a vigilante because he finds the system too corrupt to work within.

Batman has always been a character and story that can be used to argue either side of the police militarization/tough on crime debate. Which is part of why I find modern "reinterpretations" that just write Batman off as a fascist rich man beating up poor/mentally ill people to be a very simplistic take on the character, and politically a waste of a cultural icon who could be coopted to preach a message against police violence and militarization.

I think, in fact, that if any fictional character could effectively bridge the gap from America's past to what we hope America's future will be, it would be Batman. And to some extent we've actually seen Batman adopted as a symbol by protesters (multiple protests have had people show up in Batman costumes- the Philedelphia ones had both a Batman and a Joker on the scene).

Bruce could do more for Gotham by running for office and setting up social programs using his vast wealth than he'll ever do punching out crime one goon at a time. For all his flaws Bill Gates has very likely done more good than a dozen Batmen could ever accomplish.

[ray245]

Batman's an interesting one in that while on the one hand he seems to embody a very conservative philosophy (the wealthy philanthropist saving the day, vigilantism, combating crime through throwing money and force at the problem), he is also, in most versions, adamantly anti-gun and anti-killing, to the point that he will go out of his way to save the Joker's life. Its also noteworthy that the origin of modern Batman, Year One, is literally a story about him waging war on corrupt, overmilitarized police, as well as on the Mob, and his big victory at the end of that story is helping Gordon force out the corrupt police commissioner.

That clip is also an interesting example, in that Gordon's comments can be seen as warning that Batman's methods, or increased use of police force, will simply feed a cycle of ever-increasing violence and escalation.

Probably the most conservative of the Nolan films is The Dark Knight Rises, which depicts Batman helping to put down 99%/anti-police rioters stirred up by an outsider agitator (Bane)- a plot which has REALLY not aged well. Yet even there, the film critiques Gordon for lying about Dent in order to pass a Tough On Crime law, and concludes with Blake leaving the police force to become a vigilante because he finds the system too corrupt to work within.

Batman has always been a character and story that can be used to argue either side of the police militarization/tough on crime debate. Which is part of why I find modern "reinterpretations" that just write Batman off as a fascist rich man beating up poor/mentally ill people to be a very simplistic take on the character, and politically a waste of a cultural icon who could be coopted to preach a message against police violence and militarization.

I think, in fact, that if any fictional character could effectively bridge the gap from America's past to what we hope America's future will be, it would be Batman. And to some extent we've actually seen Batman adopted as a symbol by protesters (multiple protests have had people show up in Batman costumes- the Philedelphia ones had both a Batman and a Joker on the scene).

Batman is anti-gun, but he is perfectly happy to use overwhelming military firepower to "patrol" the streets of Gotham. His Batmobile is extremely militarised, not to mention his Bat-Wings ( which is an outright fighter jet). Batman is an American fantasy of policing. That if the police have enough miltiarised resources on their hand, they can take out crime for good.

[The Romulan Republic]

Batman is anti-gun, but he is perfectly happy to use overwhelming military firepower to "patrol" the streets of Gotham. His Batmobile is extremely militarised, not to mention his Bat-Wings ( which is an outright fighter jet). Batman is an American fantasy of policing. That if the police have enough miltiarised resources on their hand, they can take out crime for good.

He's also a fantasy of vigilantism- that one heroic individual, outside of the law, can do better than the police. Which isn't necessarily better, but the fact that Batman's war is obviously unwinnable, and his villains keep coming back no matter how much money he has, could send the exact opposite message- that his methods are ultimately ineffective, and at best just keeping a lid on the problem, rather than solving its underlying causes. Again, its a matter of how you play it, and because there character has been around for over eighty years, just about all of them have been explored.

Although, I think its time for someone to really go all-in on writing a progressive, revisionist Batman.

[The Romulan Republic]

In other news, the Fuhrer has announced that he's holding a rally in Tulsa, site of the infamous massacre of Black Americans, on the anniversary of the abolition of slavery. Just in case anyone still doubted who's side he was on here.

[ray245]

Batman is anti-gun, but he is perfectly happy to use overwhelming military firepower to "patrol" the streets of Gotham. His Batmobile is extremely militarised, not to mention his Bat-Wings ( which is an outright fighter jet). Batman is an American fantasy of policing. That if the police have enough miltiarised resources on their hand, they can take out crime for good.

He's also a fantasy of vigilantism- that one heroic individual, outside of the law, can do better than the police. Which isn't necessarily better, but the fact that Batman's war is obviously unwinnable, and his villains keep coming back no matter how much money he has, could send the exact opposite message- that his methods are ultimately ineffective, and at best just keeping a lid on the problem, rather than solving its underlying causes. Again, its a matter of how you play it, and because there character has been around for over eighty years, just about all of them have been explored.

Although, I think its time for someone to really go all-in on writing a progressive, revisionist Batman.

Yes, but the notion that escalation of violence is a solution is not something that has been sufficiently challenged. Batman wins his battles because he is "better" than his opponents in terms of resources and skills.

Going back to the topic at hand, the issue is it is much more difficult to do community self-policing because the American society's safety is geared in the notion of escalation of violence.

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's like Wong was saying the other day on Facebook about body cams. No they haven't proven ineffective. They haven't been effectively enforced because cops can just turn the damned things off and get away with it. We haven't exhausted the potentials for reform because we haven't done nearly enough in terms of firing entire major metropolitan police departments and replacing them with new people from scratch.

Speaking in terms of solutions that do not involve radically altering the nature of the state and modern society, I figure a good place to start would be breaking up the functions of police into multiple separate organizations. Have one group that acts as traffic wardens, and nothing else. Have an organization of unarmed detectives who investigate crimes after the fact. Have a sort of town guard organization to step in and deal with stabbing sprees/guy who just beat the shit out of a prostitute for fun/Florida Man. Make sure they're unarmed and drill it into their heads that their goal is to make sure everyone goes home unhurt as much as possible (this may be easier said than done, but it's a place to start). Have a small armed group of manhunters called in to arrest specific people and act as SWAT when it's genuinely necessary. Etc.

There's no reason why the people who direct traffic at football games should come from the same pool of people who carry guns and have an effective license to kill. It would probably be emotionally healthier for the cops themselves too. Less range of responsibility means less need to project constant I AM IN CHARGE SHOW ME YOUR HANDS alpha dick rays.

As I believe was also said on the same Facebook thread, the very problems that result in the body cam regulations being circumvented are the institutional problems that defunding/abolition are designed to solve in the first place. It's easy to say, "We'll just make the regulations stricter!" but that isn't a solution to the problem, since the entire problem is that it is trivially easy for the cops to avoid accountability even for outright, blatantly illegal actions like the ones getting caught on camera all over the country right now. The only way for stricter regulations to be successfully implemented is by overhauling the whole damned system in the first place.

[Zaune]

Would this work in the US? My perspective of the problem as a Brit, and therefore an outsider, is that the root cause of the problem is the tendency of US police to resort to extreme violence at a very early stage of any interaction. This cannot have arisen in a vacuum, and I suspect at least part of the problem is the prevalence of, and attitude towards, firearms in the US. If any interaction with the public has a non-trivial possibility of escalating to the copper leaving in a body bag, the copper's primary concern going into any such interaction will be making sure that doesn't happen. No amount of training will override that fundamental instinct towards self-preservation. Even sacking every last cop in the US and rebuilding from the ground up wouldn't work, because the environment that lead to the development of this police culture would not have changed, and something very similar would therefore develop organically.

It certainly doesn't help, but as much if not more of a problem is the complete lack of national-level oversight. There's no US equivalent of HM Inspectorate of Police, and to the best of my knowledge it's up to individual states to decide if they even want to bother imposing standardised training and recruitment requirements or use-of-force policies. Plus there's stuff like elected sheriffs, and the fact that under US law it's quite hard to sack a government employee for bringing the organisation into disrepute by participating in "political activism" in their free time, even if they're a member of a group that would be a proscribed organisation in the UK.

EDIT: As an after thought, I should also point out that a hell of a lot of the British police's institutional knowledge when it comes to policing by consent was written in blood courtesy of the Troubles.