By more meaningful measurements, Americans enjoy quite a lot of freedom. By your definition, essentially nobody in the world does.
Of course somebody in North Korea is less free than somebody living in the US. And of course it doesn't mean that we shouldn't address those cases where the police use force without just cause.
I like how you had to add "in the case of violent offenders", even though the GP was talking about peaceful Americans excercising rights. Was Daniel Shaver a violent offender? What about Philando Castile?
No, in other countries, police do not act like a cartel, and yes they are in-fact more free.
He was pointing a rifle out of the window of his hotel room which caused people to dial 911. The police are going into this situation with the belief that Shaver is armed. The police shot him after he reached for his waistband after being told to keep his hands up.
> What about Philando Castile?
The officer was charged and prosecuted, and the jury found him not guilty. What more do you want done? Kidnap the officer and imprison him extrajudicially?
Police do get charged when they kill people without a credible threat presented to them. The conviction of Derek Chauvin presents a clear example of this. You listed two examples of people who probably would still be alive with better police, out of the thousand or so people killed by police each year. The overwhelming majority of people killed by police are presenting clear danger. The instances to the contrary are noteworthy because they aren't the norm.
Consider this. Philando was legally exercising his right to carry a gun and informed the officer of this. He was then killed with impunity. Is it really a right to carry guns if you can be killed for doing so by the state with no repercussions? What is truly astounding is silence of all the 2nd Amendment folks at this fact. I’m sure Philando’s race had nothing to do with their silence.
Police rarely suffer consequences for their bad acts.
As far as I know, yes. If you have any evidence to the contrary please share it. Do you have any reason to think otherwise besides the fact that the verdict isn't what you desired?
> He was then killed with impunity.
With impunity? The officer was charged and prosecuted. That's literally the opposite of impunity.
> I’m sure Philando’s race had nothing to do with their silence.
Curious that you follow this line of reasoning when ~~you~~ the previous commenter supplied a counterexample of a white person being shot under near-identical circumstances.
I live in Saint Paul and there were criticisms of the judges instructions to the jury. I have no idea of the validity of the criticisms but prosecutors have been known to go lightly against defendants they sympathize with. He was killed with impunity because the person who killed him was not punished. Well, not in any meaningful or commensurate way.
Noted, and the previous comment has since been edited to reflect this correction.
> Daniel Shaver wasn’t armed and therefore is not an example of someone exercising their 2nd amendment right and being killed by police.
I think my point still stands, and is perhaps even stronger. How does the contrast between police killing an armed (legally armed, but armed nonetheless) black man and the police killing an unarmed white man demonstrate racial bias?
> He was killed with impunity because the person who killed him was not punished. Well, not in any meaningful or commensurate way.
The government attempted to punish the police officer. But we live in a country with checks and balances, and the jury did not convict. Again, what more do you want the government to do? Send in goons carry out extrajudicial punishment?
Philando was killed with impunity. There is no disputing this fact. It’s irrelevant that he was prosecuted because the fact remains that police killed a man who did nothing wrong with virtually no consequences. By and large police know their misconduct goes unpunished and this is a very bad thing.
I don't know how you square this fact with
>If that's the case then nobody is really free. Every country has a police force that has authority to use lethal force.
You are free to argue the technicalities of each individual case, but the fact of the matter is Americans do live under violent state apparatus that does not exist anywhere in magnitude to other comparable OCED nations. It's not hyperbole to say that Americans enjoy less freedoms than their democratic counterparts. You asking "what more can be done, the courts found him innocent" in the face of clear injustice is eye-opening; if that's case every country is free - after all if the courts of Supreme Leader Kim said so, what more can you do?
Also you don't need to compare something to the worst of the same category. This is easy and lazy. Compare things to something better, or there is no progress.
A rage-inducing example in recent years was the case of Sven W., who was beaten, abused and insulted by police for being gay. After complaining, he was then dragged in front of the court as the accused by the local DA multiple times. (https://www.queer.de/detail.php?article_id=39308)
Germany has a lot of problems and is in Not a „Rechtsstaat“. Germany is not, for example, allowed to file an arrest warrant on the EU layer because the „Staatsanwaltschaft“ (the people who can file it) are assumed under politicians - directly.