I think the US police forces may be partial to the hiring of combat vets because they feel these are seasoned professionals when it comes to following team protocol and recognized them as being experienced in the handling of weaponry. Problems with this practice? These vets may be trigger-happy and could also be suffering from PTSD. Post-traumatic Stress Disorder is classified as both a mental illness and, most recently, as a disease. So how does this translate in the field of routine police duty in American cities? It creates a friend-or-foe mentality in many of the vets’ minds, clouding their ability to reason and judge fairly. I am wondering if this mentality can ‘infect’ an entire police force, changing the rational thought process of officers who never experienced combat overseas. In the Philando Castile case, I think the officer approached the vehicle feeling that the black driver was a foe. He only heard what he wanted to hear, that Castile had a gun and NOT that he had a permit to carry. It would be interesting to find out if this officer was a vet, or if there are vets on the force. Notice how he broke down after the shooting and had to be comforted by fellow officers. I also wonder if the broken taillight reason to stop was fabricated. I believe we need to take a closer look at hiring practices across the US and even in the UK to see if there is a correlation between these shootings and the hiring of combat vets to ‘serve and protect’ our streets.
©Flaneur Ventures
Keep in mind it works both ways. The shooter in Dallas was a former combat vet.
At this point, with 300+ million guns in American there just about HAS to be some misuse by someone (cops, terrorists, racists, husbands, war vets, etc.) every day. How lucky is the UK? Less than 2 million guns and more than 60% of them shotguns in all of England and Wales!! Just means crazy people (some of them in uniform, others not) are that much less likely to happen to have a gun in their hand when craziness strikes.