In the USA, your police shoot your thugs on sight. This is how a civilized society should protect its citizens. But in the UK, we give the thugs and the immigrants free accommodation and state payouts. Victims of thugs are not protected. This is why I voted UKIP. Its the only political party that cares for British patriots.
By shooting doesn't solve problems, you end up creating more. Maybe we should drop the "labels" so that our minds don't discriminate!
Don't forget that the US is a vast country. Attitudes vary a lot from place to place. What gets you hailed as a hero in Texas might get you prosecuted in Baltimore. Take the issue of using deadly force. Many states, particularly in the South and West, have castle doctrine laws. Your home is your castle and if someone enters it illegally, you can use deadly force on them without the need to show a reasonable fear of bodily harm. My understanding is the UK follows a diametrically opposite doctrine, in which the homeowner faces a high burden to justify use of force. The difference speaks volumes aobut balues. One favors law-abiding people and protection of private property. The other values preservation of life, even if it belongs to a thug and doing so makes the lives of law-abiding people miserable.
I disagree. By shooting thugs, we get rid of the problem. If the thugs don't want to be shot, they should follow police instructions when arrested. Thugs should stop blaming their poverty on everyone else, and should not riot and loot. If a thug repents and becomes law abiding and follows Christ's path, we should give the former thug a job. A thug who does not repent is possessed by Lucifer, so should be shot in order to protect church goers.