BLACK LIVES MATTER

Well sadly that won't change fast. The structures have grown over many, many decades and the problem consists of so many elements, I don't even know where to start. Some of them are already in the law like the gun policy. If everybody is allowed to carry firearms it offers a wider base for criminality and violence. And obviously it needs the police to be armed as well and live in fear of getting a victim as well, therefore they are more violent as well, which leads to soo many wrongdoings, which leads to anger - not only among criminals, but also among others, which already downgrades the view of the police, which angers many policemen and so on and on. It's a never ending cycle - as stabcaesar pointed out already.
Whereas in some european countries most policemen are not even armed.

Mostly it's part of the history. It's bad enough what happens those days, but it's just a few decades back, when a Black's life in the southern states of the USA was worth nothing in most people's minds (in many of them it obviously still is that way) AND the law system, judges, attorney and so on where a huge part of it. Partly you don't even have to go back so far. The LA riots in 1992 did not happen because Rodney King was beaten, it was because the four policemen were acquitted. There is false team spirit in the police (not only there). Many of them will stay together whatever happens and cover an individual officers wrongdoings. This is one of the first things you have to get rid of. If a policeman commits a crime he has to pay the prize for it as everybody else. The police and the law should protect the law not themselves.
Also that history that's full of conflicts between black and white between the police and the people that are cemented so firm into the positions and thinkings of many people (on the one side or the other) and with every year that passes, in which politics, institutions and laws don't try to change it, it will get more and more inflexible. There you have to begin to change it.
Barack Obama wrote this a few days ago: "The elected officials who matter most in reforming police departments and the criminal justice system work at the state and local levels. It’s mayors and county executives that appoint most police chiefs and negotiate collective bargaining agreements with police unions. It’s district attorneys and state’s attorneys that decide whether or not to investigate and ultimately charge those involved in police misconduct. Those are all elected positions. In some places, police review boards with the power to monitor police conduct are elected as well. Unfortunately, voter turnout in these local races is usually pitifully low, especially among young people — which makes no sense given the direct impact these offices have on social justice issues, not to mention the fact that who wins and who loses those seats is often determined by just a few thousand, or even a few hundred, votes.
So the bottom line is this: if we want to bring about real change, then the choice isn’t between protest and politics. We have to do both. We have to mobilize to raise awareness, and we have to organize and cast our ballots to make sure that we elect candidates who will act on reform.
Finally, the more specific we can make demands for criminal justice and police reform, the harder it will be for elected officials to just offer lip service to the cause and then fall back into business as usual once protests have gone away." So you can just hope to get the right people into those important jobs.

As someone else said: a very, very important thing would be to start with background checks of people who want to become policemen. And then psychological tests over and over again. You actually have this problem in european countries as well. There are some people, who just like to have power or are racist or something like this and therefore become policemen to feel themselves important or to have the power to victimise some foreigners or something like this. In Germany for example there is since a few years a problem of a system of political right-wing minded policemen - but the problem (which will always occur) was recognised and internal enquiries were quickly initiated. In the USA in contrast as you can see with George Floyds murderer, who had the ridiculous amount of 18 complaints against him, this is so everyday that no attorneys or politicians or higher ranked police officers (who might have sentiments as well) care about it.

The US police has the proud motto "To Protect and to Serve" (originally from the LAPD) and the only way to change police and it's image is, that the policemen would not just take this words as an empty shell or to twist them to increase an attitude of wrong pride, but take them as what they truly mean: Yes, the police has the job to keep order. But it's not their job to be punishers. There should be a dialogue with the people. From what I hear and read many policemen seem to meet everybody with mistrust (again, partly maybe because they have had inconvenient experiences in the past, partly because these feelings were implemented into their heads), but if you talk with just an average man or woman there should be no reason for that.

That's the thing, they already do all types of background checks and psych test and this is the result? 

The people in charge who make the rules need to actually follow them. There is no excuse for allowing a police office with 18 complaints against him to continue to patrol. He is obviously not a people person so why have him interact with the community? 

I'm not going to link to it but Ben Shapiro on his podcast today gave a great analysis of why the charges may be a mistake and why getting convictions on the other 3 may prove harder with the 2nd degree murder charge.......it's arguable but he examines it in detail on both sides.

Podcast is on Youtube and this is covered within the first 15 minutes.........worth a listen imo.

Yeah, Shapiro makes a strong case. Lane made a weak effort to stop Chauvin, asking about rolling Floyd on his side. Kueng was... there?

I don't see how an officer sees someone being held down and saying that he can't breathe and he asks his superior about it but doesn't stop him, gets charged with aiding and abetting murder. It's... a tough sell. I see that it *can* stick, but this seems really off.

The second degree vs. third degree on Chauvin can go either way, but theoretically from what I've seen, I think second could fit.

The body language says a lot. The one guy is ashamed and the other three look straight ahead as if the are proud of what they did.

....You're using mug shots to determine someone's character.

You do realize that it has been reported that the one who was looking down told the lead cop that that wasn't right. So yes, a picture can a story. 

Equivocal language like this has been all over the place, and it's astounding. So many cases of passive instead of active voice like "woman was struck by a rubber bullet," "man was injured" and shit like that. Grow some fucking balls and hold the police accountable, journalists.  

So how do you explain a body language expert who does the same thing? That is my opinion on the matter that the one cop looked down because he was ashamed and the other three looked straight ahead because they felt none. And it is very telling that the one who looked down is the one who spoke out. So if you think what I said is wrong, that is your opinion. 

Maybe the ius soli rule, that gives anyone American citizenship if they're born in the US, can have a role in this issue.
People are American simply by birth, while in lots of other countries immigrants and their children, even when they're born there, need to prove an integration process, a long lasting residence, and the knowledge of national language and institutions.

Indeed - America is not like any country in that it has a "national spirit" that is in many ways legally and culturally based on many small "freedoms to be an idiot".

As an example: gun ownership is a right in the US - like the government could legally take my car away tomorrow but never my gun - driving is a privilege, gun ownership a right granted to me by the US Constitution........so the country is built on many odd dichotomies like that.

There is nothing to stop a person from seeing themselves as a "white" American or an "African American" - there is nothing that forces love of the US Constitution which is the pathway to national identity......... where you have to literally choose  - on some level to be an American FIRST and everything else is a lesser identifier.

Once you don't believe that beautiful and tacit agreement - once you believe your skin color or ANYTHING ELSE overrides that...... well you can kill a cop (fnck you) or they can kill an innocent citizen (fnck you too) ....... and the citizenry can deface National monuments or buildings or attack itself and property even - you can rip it all up ...........you have the freedom to be idiots......and its not the girls cleaning the building in the video below.