Who wants officer Wilson's job?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
he should have been shot because he resisted arrest.

I disagree. I do not think guns, even in the hands of police, should be used for anything other than self defense or the defense of others. I do not think one should be shot for resisting arrest.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is the sort of thing people asked me when I was planning to move from Zambia to South Africa. It turned out that many things are actually cheaper in South Africa.
Yes, I have a higher cost of living because I am wealthier and choose to spend more, but the so called higher cost of living is entirely a matter of choice.
In reality, almost everything in the US is cheaper than it is here.

I suppose if you choose not to buy anything, then the cost of living would be the same.

Things like rent, food, transportation and such are generally considered things everyone is willing to pay for. I can't imagine that rent would be cheaper in the US.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. I do not think guns, even in the hands of police, should be used for anything other than self defense or the defense of others. I do not think one should be shot for resisting arrest.

According to testimony, it was self defense.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. I do not think guns, even in the hands of police, should be used for anything other than self defense or the defense of others. I do not think one should be shot for resisting arrest.

I can understand your line of thought, but you leave out that most often resisting arrest involves an attack on the arresting officer, so self defense kicks in.

Generally, cops in the US can't randomly kill fleeing suspects, unless they reasonably believe that the suspect is so imminently dangerous to the public that they must shoot. That is rare, and most cops would not intentionally put themselves in that situation, trying to argue how dangerous the suspect was.

So it comes down to how you resist arrest. Usually it is either flight or fight.

Originally posted by Eladar
I suppose if you choose not to buy anything, then the cost of living would be the same.

Things like rent, food, transportation and such are generally considered things everyone is willing to pay for. I can't imagine that rent would be cheaper in the US.

An acquaintance that lives in S. Africa tells me that his housing costs are quite high, but his living quarters would not be available in the States. Transportation is expensive, but many consumer products aren't available to in South Africa, notably cosmetic items sold to African Americans. His mother sends him a lot of stuff he is used to, but can't get there.

It is difficult, if not impossible to compare living costs across the planet. This is partly due to currency manipulation, and partly due to just too many variables. There are huge variances in cost of living in regions of the US. Big cities like Chicago, New York and San Francisco are likely double what it costs to live in rural Indiana or Michigan.

Originally posted by Eladar
Things like rent, food, transportation and such are generally considered things everyone is willing to pay for. I can't imagine that rent would be cheaper in the US.

Food and transportation are probably cheaper in the US. I believe fuel is cheaper there.
Rent is difficult to compare, as even within Cape Town there is quite a wide range of prices, and back home in Zambia too there is a wide range. The question is how does one evaluate what you are getting for your money. Where I currently live in Cape Town, is a flat that simply has no equivalent in Zambia.

Ultimately however, for a given quality of living, and with a given amount of goods, life is probably cheaper in the US than in South Africa or Zambia.

Some things, like internet access, computers, and phones are significantly cheaper in the US.

But even if I am wrong, and some things are more expensive in the US, there is no doubt whatsoever that if I was given Wilsons salary in the US, I would enjoy a significantly higher standard of living than I do here in SA at the current point in time.

Originally posted by normbenign
I can understand your line of thought, but you leave out that most often resisting arrest involves an attack on the arresting officer, so self defense kicks in.

On that I agree. If a suspect attacks you, then shooting him may be reasonable, although I would think a bit more restraint should be shown than in this particular instance.
I do not think a fleeing suspect should be shot unless he is considered a particularly dangerous criminal, and even then, a leg shot should be preferred.

I can see how it would be expensive trying to live a first world lifestyle in a 2nd or 3rd world nation.